Ask HN: Why Isn't Go Functional?

Re:Ask HN: Why Isn't Go Functional? by mjfs on Tuesday June 18, 2019 @01:39PM (#20215856)

As discussed in the Go FAQ relating to the design principles of Go, the language was designed with the idea of using it in situations as an alternative to older object-oriented/procedural languages like C, C++, and Java.[1] So they chose to make a language with less "book keeping and repetition", and with a focus on ease of entry to the language itself. Creating a purely functional or even mainly functional language to replace or start new services and programs written or designed by people familiar with the OO/procedural paradigm would be to add another entry barrier or level of complexity to adopting the language. I believe this would be counter to their goals for the language.

[1] https://golang.org/doc/faq#principles

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ask HN: Why Isn't Go Functional? by flavio81 on Wednesday June 19, 2019 @02:22PM (#20225759)

> So they chose to make a language with less "book keeping and repetition"

Yes, less repetition and more

    x, err := dostuff();
    if err!=nil { return nil, err; }

    y, err := otherstuff(x);
    if err!=nil { return nil, err; }

    z, err := morestuff(y);
    if err!=nil { return nil, err; }

    w, err := alsodo(x,y);
    if err!=nil { return nil, err; }

Truly an excellent design.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ask HN: Why Isn't Go Functional? by danielscrubs on Wednesday June 19, 2019 @12:23PM (#20224686)

I like that they aren’t trying to hide that it’s a beginner language.

[ Parent | on HN ]