Re:When Rust Makes Sense, or The State of Typed Languages
by lmm on Monday September 28, 2015 @07:46AM
(#10289913)
No-one wants a runtime just for the sake of it. Go gives very little in return - it's less safe than Rust and, despite automatic memory management, not appreciably more expressive.
I think the advantages of Go lie in making it easy to reason about performance/operational behaviour (which Rust and OCaml have, but is perhaps missing from Haskell), and in having a well-supported syntactic metamodel (scala.meta may ultimately become such a thing). With some recent emphasis on code generation it almost resembles the lisp traditional.
But I can't see Go itself working out in the long term. The concurrency model is too ad-hoc, and the language too tightly coupled to it. And in a language that's already gone to the trouble of a static type system, the cost:benefit for generics is insanely good.
I think the advantages of Go lie in making it easy to reason about performance/operational behaviour (which Rust and OCaml have, but is perhaps missing from Haskell), and in having a well-supported syntactic metamodel (scala.meta may ultimately become such a thing). With some recent emphasis on code generation it almost resembles the lisp traditional.
But I can't see Go itself working out in the long term. The concurrency model is too ad-hoc, and the language too tightly coupled to it. And in a language that's already gone to the trouble of a static type system, the cost:benefit for generics is insanely good.