Hacker News Reader

While an unpopular opinion, I believe Python has lost its way too. "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it." - yeah I don't see it and that used to be one of the reasons I loved Python. They used to at least try for that to hold true, not it's like they try for the opposite. I much prefer Go these days.

View on HN

I understand preferring Go for static typing or performance, but not because a dynamic language gives you more than one way to do things. If don't like that Python has gained too many features, why not use something like Lua? Why jump into a more restricted language that's going to require you to write more code?

I get the argument if a programmer doesn't like dynamic languages in general, but not because one dynamic language has become too flexible.

I looked at Lua briefly instead of Go, but it looks like the concurrency story is lacking. Go also has an enormous standard library which helps for quick tasks.

Go will probably be a mess in 20 years as well.

Yet still no generics.

Python even has limited generics now through mypy and pep 484.

> Yet still no generics.

You can use the gccgo runtime from Nim and get your goroutines and channels working with generics, macros and everything else Nim has to offer: https://github.com/stefantalpalaru/golib-nim

Reply on news.ycombinator.com