May I ask why you turned to Go in the first place?

Your taunting remarks seem to indicate that you were forced moving to Go; 
but on the other hand, earlier you indicated that you need to sell Go (or 
rather, the lack of a feature in Go) to your team, so it seems you are the 
driving force behind moving to Go. 

In the latter case, if Go does not fulfill your expectations (and given you 
still have free choice), then have you thought about choosing a language 
with the features you need instead? I am sure no one here would seriously 
recommend Go as a "one-size-fits-all" language. Go does not have generics 
nor exceptions, so if you want these features badly, then Go isn't for you.

On Tuesday, August 8, 2017 at 9:15:05 AM UTC+2, 
>> The Go philosophy is explicitly *not* to give you everything you want.  
>> It *is* to give you everything you need to build everything you want, 
>> like Lego.
> Yeah right, when men still where real men and programmed their own device 
> drivers...
> Or take a car, give me parts & tools and I am ready to give you a ride in 
> say a year? 
>> Every language is different. Any developer worth their salt won't dismiss 
>> a tool out-of-hand for such a trivial reason.
> No nobody would. But trivial things add up and then people run away or 
> never sign up.
> I have learnt to never not listen to your (potential) users.
> If a new project comes on board of the Go train, people already have to 
> wrap their heads around new (admittedly interesting) concepts, they have to 
> accept "err != nil" spaghetti, distinction between Array and Slices, make 
> and new, and so on.
> Personally I got really interested when I died around your standard 
> library which I really like and it seems to give us exactly what we need, 
> not too much, not too little.
>> Also, consider the fact that in Python, the same loop is happening. Go 
>> just doesn't hide that from the developer, making it easier for us to 
>> reason about things like performance. You can write your own "find" 
>> function in seconds if you want one.
> It just looks awkward:
>     contains := false
>     for _, n := range excluded_numbers {
>       if byte(m) == n {
>         contains = true
>       }
>     }
>     if !contains {
>        ...
> Seriously? 2017?
> Martin
>> -- 
>> ☕😎

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
For more options, visit

Reply via email to