Hacker News Reader

Comment by bad_user | Hacker News Reader

I don't know why you speak in the past tense, but I consider Go still not being "innovative" enough and also broken by design. We'll talk in about 2 years from now when they'll finally add generics to the language, in a broken way nonetheless, as generics do have to be baked in right from the start to pull it off. And it badly needs generics.

But you see, Go got all this attention just because it is a language released by Google. And in the meantime version 2.0 of a real systems programming language that is innovative and kick-ass is largely going unnoticed.

View on HN

> And in the meantime version 2.0 of a real systems programming language that is innovative and kick-ass is largely going unnoticed.

Which one?

I'd love an answer to that - I just got given the task to evaluate Go as a possible development tool for a future project.

Edit: I'll take a stab in the dark and say D?

FWIW I actually agree about the generics, both that Go needs them and that bolting them on afterwards typically doesn't work as well as having them from the start. But in general I wouldn't call it "broken" and view being "not innovative enough" as a feature for a systems language.

One of the reasons Go still doesn't have generics is reluctance to 'bolt them on', and that the current language works surprisingly well without them.

Of course that wont't stop people who have not written any Go code from claiming Go is worthless without them.

That's a cheap shot. Here's the opinion of Andrei Alexandrescu:

http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/kikut/think_in_...

Yes, precisely the opinion of somebody that has not written anything in Go.

Not to mention somebody quite biased given that Go has been way more successful in being used to build actual systems than Alexandrescu's D2.

> And it badly needs generics.

Everyone I know who has actually used Go strongly disagrees with this claim, they are very happy with Go's interface system and most of them don't notice the lack of generics at all.

Go is not like other languages, and 'features' are not interchangeable across languages.

> But you see, Go got all this attention just because it is a language released by Google.

Yea, that it was created by Ken Thompson and Rob Pike had absolutely nothing to do with it. /a

Reply on news.ycombinator.com