I also don't understand what you mean by "interactive debugger". What is gdb if not an interactive debugger? Gdb is my go-to debugger for Ruby as well.
If you are a Ruby developer then I highly recommend trying out RubyMine. I promise that you will never debug Ruby code using gdb again!
That's not for the go team to develop.
> If you are a Ruby developer then I highly recommend trying out RubyMine. I promise that you will never debug Ruby code using gdb again!
I haven't used RubyMine, but I have used Visual Studio and Eclipse debuggers, and I still debug using gdb, ruby-debug, pdb et al.
Unless you are debugging the ruby process(and not the running script), what does gdb buy you over ruby-debug?
- How do I do this?
- Why do you want to do this?
- Because XXX
- Then that's not really what you should be doing, it's dangerous/inefficient/etc., do this instead
The post about Acme could have been a one-line answer: "If you want do do any of this, just use a better editor".
Sometimes, people aren't new.
Overall very happy with our choice. I will probably learn Go too, but I also don't really like the way it does error handling and the tooling support seems limited vs what I can get for the JVM.
I don't know if Go would quite feel the same, but Scala's Try, Pattern Matching and Curried functions are stupid nice and make handling errors without exceptions feel very natural.
Took me a couple months to get there, but there you go. "Folding" out different state feels like I'm writing more robust code. Where I'm coding for a range of possibilities instead of just the golden path.
Even when I _am_ focusing on the Golden Path, features like Try[A] force me (well, warn at least) to at-least stub out the other options so I get to feel like instead of having to hammer in robustness, it's something composed instead. I can focus on making the ideal X, and handle the possibility of needing a notX as alternative realities, instead of trying to build a cyborgXYZ that can handle every potential state. If that makes any sense.
Then I discovered D and Rust are better languages for my purposes.
Because it is full of Google PR and happens to have some cool names on the team?
> Where are you going to put your chips?
In languages that the designers don't throw away the last decades of improvements in language design.
I think better advice for you is to just stay away from opinionated languages. I don't think Rust falls into that category, but I'm not sure.
Sorry, but the C syntax is dominating the native-compiled world. You could try Pascal, they have "end". Or use C with preprocessor magic:
#define END ;}
https://github.com/manastech/crystal
It is still an ongoing development, though.
Like.
I don't need exceptions because Go function can return multiple values.
I don't need a mocking framework like Mockito because Go has interfaces.
I don't need an interactive debugger because I can debug with command line using gdb.
I don't need named arguments because I can instantiate a struct and call my function with it. (Have you seen Ruby or Javascript code? Almost every function takes 'opts' as a single argument. Go is probably going down this path too.)
Then I learned about Scala. I'm not saying that Scala is better than Go. However, it has everything that I need. :)