It's easy to echo who you perceive as smart people; it's harder to have your own opinions, and be at a level where you can defend them in a satisfactory way.

Somehow, the Go language is doing it, eschewing traditional OOP in favor of a get shit done fast and a little dirty approach. It's not even because of the charm of an individual either.

Then again, before Go there was JS as the big opponent to rigid OOP. I still don't understand why they felt like they had to add half-baked classes / OOP to it.

I always strongly disliked the OOP school of program design, even though I learned to parrot everything required by one's typical interview process.

Keeping data and functions together can be nice. In some rare cases inheritance is almost OK. But still don't understand how it all went nuts and they started writing, say, parsers in that style...

But it's always nice to hear that there are other people having similar opinions. Especially if it's people like Linus.

yeah but people hate writing Go. It’s like using the dullest possible knife. It doesn’t have objects, it doesn’t have generics (so you can’t really do Functional Programming) and it doesn’t really let you do C-style machine work either. Its basic assumption is that you’ll have an endless supply of human beings to implement everything, because the computer isn’t going to let you abstract anything

> people hate writing Go

Bit of a blanket statement. I enjoy it much more than the little Node I investigated for work.

The lack of functional programming though, yeah. I feel like it might be due to GC optimisations as well, however. From what I understand, the reason the GC is so fast is because such a style of programming is heavily discouraged.

> I enjoy it much more than the little Node I investigated for work.

I'm another one that prefers putting a bullet on my foot than putting it on my head.

> I still don't understand why they felt like they had to add half-baked classes / OOP to it.

That one I'll never forgive :-)