On Thursday, 26 March 2015 at 00:08:28 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 22:30:15 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
Go has stability, is production ready and has an ecosystem with commercial value.


You could say the same things about Cobol or PHP, but that doesn't mean the languages themselves should be free from criticism.

There is a difference between claiming that language A makes this and that difficult and claiming that language B is better than A. To claim the latter you need to look at comparable larger real world programs and how it fares regarding scaling and maintainability issues.

My opinion of Go was very much consistent with the article. It doesn't mean much to me to have a stable language that I don't want to use. His points are valid.

I could easily make similar points about D and it's somewhat messed up type system, syntax and libraries. It would be quite easy to convincingly claim that C++/Go/Python are a better languages than D.

The Go designers keep the language small and polish it to production quality before moving on with new features. Some of the Go designers also have acknowledged that exceptions and generics can be useful, but that they don't want to add features until they know it is the right thing to do and how to go about it.

If you aren't making a research language (and D most certainly would fail in that arena) the only thing that matters is how it fares in a production setting by programmers who do full time programming in the language.

Reply via email to