I see this article being an address to these criticisms (which are not limited to this forum, I've seen similar arguments on twitter, etc.).
Pointing out shortcomings isn't really impolite or unfair. The author specifically mentioned shortcomings of Rust as well.
It's also more accurate to say that Rust wasn't designed / was an accident since it was technically a side project of one guy at Mozilla.
One can plainly be a good programmer and yet create a bad language. I'm sure you are well-informed enough to analyse his argument on its merits, even if it were written by a gang of monkeys with typewriters.
That's one of the most mild and inoffensive criticisms I've ever read on the internet. You can't seriously be indignant about that.
Of note: the last time in question was yesterday, the flagging and ad-hominems pretty obviously made lime's cupeth runneth over.
Edit: though, I suppose saying Go is not designed is also equally unnecessarily dismissive and hyperbolic.
it's kinda a shitpost
And let's face it, Portland kinda takes itself too seriously.
As for Portland taking itself too seriously, are you serious? Portland has so many quirky things that the conservative states don't have(much less putting walls up and making some people, making 2nd class citizens ((yes, voting rights)), and you say Portland is too serious? Good luck with that gaslight.
It's important for individuals to be able to do that, and it's on everyone else to make the distinction.
I have no particular affinity for Go or Rust. As an outsider this is not how I’ve ever perceived the Rust community, because the most present and visible parts of the Rust community were people showing up and complaining that Project X didn’t use their preferred silver bullet
It's also way too hugboxxy and tbh that feels just as toxic some times as the alternative. Positivity to the point where it's obviously fake and forced and insincere.
Edit: howinteresting I can't reply to your comment but you are proving my point. At least you people are being more honest that it is intended to exclude a bunch of people.
(FWIW, I appreciate your open-mindedness. I think that's the main thing I find objectionable on (parts of) both sides of the aisle: an inability to regard those who disagree as fundamentally well-intentioned human beings who happen to hold different beliefs.)
What, you cant handle queer people existing?
Guy makes a blog post about Go a few years ago. It gets posted here time and time again, not of his doing. A bunch of people challenge his premises, so he makes another post diving deeper into his arguments.
So what?
What's up with the literal hundreds of "Golang is amazing" posts this site has had? Is someone attempting to express dissent clearly that much of a bother?
What makes me angry about all this Go-bashing is that it might influence decision makers against moving from things like PHP or Node to Go - which I think would be an improvement, no matter how many flaws Go may or may not have.
It's just a language! Take it easy.
The guy is not "heaping on invectives" - he's not criticizing you or someone you care about. He's pointing out some flaws in a language in a sarcastic way.
"Mom smokes, so it's probably okay"
"I remember fondly the time an audience member asked the Go team "why did you choose to ignore any research about type systems since the 1970s"? (Emphasis his, not mine)
"It doesn't matter who points out that "maybe we shouldn't hit ourselves in the head with a rake repeatedly""
"Or you can be horrified, as you realize that those complex problems only exist because Go is being used."
"you adopted a language that happened by accident" (a direct criticism at Go users)
"Evidently, the Go team didn't want to design a language."
"Because it needed to be familiar to "Googlers, fresh out of school, who probably learned some Java/C/C++/Python" (Rob Pike, Lang NEXT 2014), it borrowed from all of these."
I just have up here. Do you really think a production conversation can start from this? ESR has flamed less haughtily.
"Mom smokes, so it's probably okay"
"I remember fondly the time an audience member asked the Go team "why did you choose to ignore any research about type systems since the 1970s"? (Emphasis his, not mine)
"It doesn't matter who points out that "maybe we shouldn't hit ourselves in the head with a rake repeatedly""
"Or you can be horrified, as you realize that those complex problems only exist because Go is being used."
"you adopted a language that happened by accident" (a direct criticism at Go users)
"Evidently, the Go team didn't want to design a language."
"Because it needed to be familiar to "Googlers, fresh out of school, who probably learned some Java/C/C++/Python" (Rob Pike, Lang NEXT 2014), it borrowed from all of these."
I just gave up here. Do you really think a production conversation can start from this? ESR has flamed less haughtily.
I’m glad we have as many languages options as we do, and I enjoy writing a variety of languages for a variety of different projects. Sure, I have moments where I think “ugh why can’t I do X in language Y” or “C is cleaner in Y” etc etc.
I’ve found helpful people, critics, and fanatics in every language community. Don’t let that dissuade you from learning Rust (or Go, or …)