This needs to be higher up, and summarizes my main cultural oppositions to golang. I'll also add:
- Extensive laundry lists of frustrations, sharp edges, antipatterns, and ways the language makes it trivial to write incorrect code are dismissed as nits or minor annoyances.
- Missing features that have no way of being worked around are dismissed off-hand as unnecessary complexity.
- The language authors repeatedly ignore mistakes learned from other language projects and rush headlong right back into them, with predictable consequences.
- Verbosity is mistaken for "simplicity" while bugs scaling roughly linearly with lines of code is quite literally one of the few reliable bits of data we actually have in this industry.
> Missing features that have no way of being worked around are dismissed off-hand as unnecessary complexity.
You forgot to add the part where, once the features are added after all, they stop being "unnecessary" complexity :)
Re:Go 1.18
by philosopher1234 on Tuesday March 15, 2022 @06:46PM
(#30692948)
You may think these reasons are negative or depraved, but they are none the less legitimate reasons that motivate real people. Why should we pretend they can't possibly be a factor?
- Rational reasons (frustrations with the language design) are briefly acknowledged but then some reason left by the wayside
- It is suggested that people don't have principled objections to $lang; they will "latch onto" something else if $misfeature is fixed
- Simplicity, a universally praised quality, might be the problem
- ... Because it can "humiliate" someone who has wasted time on needless complexity
- "$lang has opinions", which all languages have whether they acknowledge them or not. Why should this bug people especially when it comes to $lang?
- "Anti-expertise" for some reason, even though creating any "enterprise-ready" language takes expertise and many years of effort. (This also seems to be at odds with the "anti-simplicity" point?)
- ... But aren't then people who argue for $lang also anti-expertise? They are after all taking a stance on something that they are not experts at; they should take a neutral stance and defer to the experts
I would say that it is rude to suggest that someone might not really be arguing against X and instead ask what they are really upset about, since the follow-up questions and implications are absolutely never flattering. They inevitably just dive into the gutter with suggestions like "maybe simplicity humiliates you".