Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Most of my complaints, I feel like are pretty well documented: No ability to do Generics, no ability to do operator overloading, no ability to make your own for each style loop objects, very manual and repetitive error handling. These are all simplifications to the language spec at the expense of more complicated usage. For the most part, I've been trying to understand myself how to express why I get a pretty bad taste in my mouth when using or looking at Go code, why it feels so much less productive to me than the higher-level languages. Which is what it has been making dents in more than anything else. I especially wanted to understand this since I do see myself as someone who values simplicity. In the end, it's because I value simplicity in usage, rather than the simplicity be in the language constructs. I'd instead rather learn a slightly more complicated language, and be more productive with every task I write using it. I don't see Go users as cavemen. That was admittedly an exaggeration to express my point clearly.





>In the end, it's because I value simplicity in usage, rather than the simplicity be in the language constructs.

That's interesting, because to me, Go accomplishes this fairly well. Generics, operator overloading, and custom 'for' loops make it easier to write "clever" code with surprising behavior. Go's design is not elegant like Lisp or Haskell; there are some warts and special cases that exist for pragmatic reasons. But it manages to be simple and effective, which is sadly a rare thing in the modern language landscape, where the mentality seems to be "more features = better language." 90% of Go's value is in what it takes away, rather than what it adds.


One could make the same argument for Lua.

Cool, here's my take: people who insist on a language supporting generics are lazy and uncreative.

Language designers: Design a language to not use generics.

timothycrosley: It doesn't do generics!!! Aaargh!!


Except they didn't. Go has generic maps and slices. It was never their goal to create a language without generics. What happened is they failed to come up with a satisfactory design for user defined generics in time to make Go version 1.

Exactly, They didn’t feel it was important. It was not part of the language design.

https://golang.org/doc/faq#generics




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: