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

Right, although even if it was a straight choice of Go and OCaml, OCaml would certainly win since Go has very poor types, no type inference, requires you to put error handling everywhere. It's like they didn't understand functional languages at all. In fact, I'd just use C instead of Go because at least C is widely available and well understood.

Hey, there are valid reasons not to use Go, but don't you think you're laying it on a bit thick? A lot of those are pretty subjective, too.

My anecdata tells me that Go's types are sufficient (and sometimes even handy), error handling everywhere helps more than it hurts (and is easily ignored if you want to), and is very much not a functional language. And I would disagree with the notion that C is, on average, well-understood given how widely available it is (a nicer way of saying that C is an easy language for anyone to misunderstand). Go is comparatively simpler to 'get right' -- in my experience

Again, this is all very subjective. Still, I don't see how flaming Go alone helps highlight OCaml's advantages and contrast their tradeoffs.

OCaml's type system is not particularly sophisticated for a functional language, but it's still way ahead of Go. I can't see how Go's type are comparably sufficient.

Yes probably I am. I think this stems from my feeling that Go is a lost opportunity. There's room for a sane C++ replacement. OCaml hasn't made it yet, although it fits in that space [arguably]. Go tries to do that but ignores great languages that have gone before it.

I understand the confusion about the language though I don't think the goal was ever to replace C++. Go still has a managed runtime, so I can't imagine it would ever appeal to people who want to go purely native.

Registration is open for Startup School 2019. Classes start July 22nd.

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