Ten Years of “Go: The Good, the Bad, and the Meh

Re:Ten Years of “Go: The Good, the Bad, and the Meh by Veraticus on Tuesday July 18, 2023 @03:44PM (#36778166)

Right? So many complaints about "well but it's hard to make N-leaf tries in golang so we need generics!" It's like people believe the success of a programming language is correlated to its ability to express obscure computer science concepts unrelated to most peoples' jobs.

Golang works extremely well in practice, which is what I really care about.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ten Years of “Go: The Good, the Bad, and the Meh by sophacles on Tuesday July 18, 2023 @05:27PM (#36779323)

And here I thought it was because:

1. repeating the same function definition and type declarations over and over varying only one type parameter and the name was a great way to introduce bugs if one of the functions was missed in updating.

2. working with reflection is slow and complex and easy to get wrong

Both of which are solved with something simple like generics.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ten Years of “Go: The Good, the Bad, and the Meh by kaba0 on Wednesday July 19, 2023 @02:19AM (#36782709)

If a goddamn list/vector requires built-ins from your language, you have already lost.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Ten Years of “Go: The Good, the Bad, and the Meh by Veraticus on Wednesday July 19, 2023 @03:40AM (#36783190)

Golang is responsible for some of the biggest open-source projects out there and has a huge share of developers working in it. Lost… what exactly?

[ Parent | on HN ]