There are many shops that exclude using certain features (eg exceptions in C++). It makes interoperability and using 3rd party libs more difficult (plus other issues) but it can be done.
> On Dec 22, 2020, at 9:41 PM, Jeremy French <ibi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'd like to second the notion that the argument "if you don't like them, > don't use them," is an invalid argument. Anyone who's been in the game for > any length of time knows that more than we'd like, we're repairing someone > else's code, as opposed to writing our own from scratch. If there is a bad > or confusing way to write Go code, then it will be written that way by some, > and we'll all be forced to deal with it. > > It seems to me that part of the reason that Go was ever even a necessary > experiment was because these other languages were trying to appeal to as many > use cases as possible, and the complexity and awkwardness of those languages > - as well as their reliance on their programmers to know the "right way" to > write in the language - are an unavoidable consequence of succumbing to that > temptation. I would channel Antoine de Saint-Exupery in this: “Perfection is > Achieved Not When There Is Nothing More to Add, But When There Is Nothing > Left to Take Away” > > I also think saying "If you want a Java-like experience, use Java" is not > only not a personal attack, nor an exclusionary statement, it's a perfectly > reasonable recommendation. Programming languages are not exclusivity clubs > where if you use one, you're excluded from using another. Using the right > tool for the job is part of our profession. But I think some people, myself > included, find that easier to do when the tools don't all look and function > the same way. Having a programming language that is simple, clear, fast, and > easy to maintain - even if it's considered not the right tool for the job in > every case - is something that I think holds value to us. That might not be > something that would be expressed very well in a survey. > >> On Tuesday, December 22, 2020 at 6:57:47 PM UTC-5 ohir wrote: >> >> Artur Vianna> you can keep writing your standard Go as it never existed. >> >> L Godioleskky> those of us who want to ignore them can easily do so >> >> Nope. You can neither pretend "it never existed" nor "ignore" no part of the >> language. >> You as a programmer are supposed to read and *understand* a lot of other's >> code >> before you will start to write your part. >> >> -- >> Wojciech S. Czarnecki >> << ^oo^ >> OHIR-RIPE > > -- > 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 to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/7e0e0b20-9646-43fa-a5ce-331f730c202cn%40googlegroups.com. -- 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 to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/85157174-60EC-45EF-A27C-A2CD358B1049%40ix.netcom.com.
