Could we all just agree to pretend that Bell Labs folks invented those ideas? Would that work?
To reduce them to what C++ and Java implementations offer, is just being ignorant from history of programming languages.
Isn't that Go's design principle?
> But there's no need to insult everyone who uses language.
Is that from Go's social media handbook? I have never ever seen users of a language complain about perceived insults as consistently as Go. It seems like it's the only argument they are able to make if they disagree with other people.
An identical technique could be used for yacc or protobufs.
I bet C++ can do it with some clear use of template metatprogramming, compile time evaluation and processor macros.
Nim has meta-programming capabilities, including reading files.
Not sure about Template Haskell, though.
The people who have no knowledge or skill in Go, on the other hand, fill the message boards, railing rabidly about how absolutely critical generics are, and don't these people (who almost universally have extensive experience across a number of languages) know what they're missing?
Yes, there are reasons why the intended audience of Go just didn't care and Go is mostly used PHP, JavaScript, Python, Ruby etc, developers today.
Could be dynamic typing has had its day, just like visual programming from the 1990's. Or maybe users of those languages wanted to use one with a large corp backing it, like Java and C# have. The most common glib response I get when I say I'm trying out Go to write something is "You're using Go? So you wanna work for Google, do you?" Perhaps that shows the real motivation of why a programmer learns Ruby or Python or Go.
Those languages probably don't have anything that has only one idiomatic solution. Even writing a for loop will have multiple different but viable alternatives.
Then there are people who want their language to be as simple as possible, yet still powerful enough to allow you to create all the things you can with Go.
There are very few such languages. In fact, there are a few things/special rules I'd like to see simplified in Go because they have less benefit than cost.
Having a simple language allows for some cool benefits, and if Go starts to compete with C++ for number of features, it will lose its main distinctive property.
The desire for a simple language doesn't mean you have to accept all the mistakes Go made. Go is just not a very good language. It would be completely irrelevant without the Google name behind it.
It certainly could be better (this is true of everything that's not perfect), but it is being improved (and it's open source, so you and I can help make it better). I already prefer it over many other languages.
> It would be completely irrelevant without the Google name behind it.
You mean... It would be irrelevant if Google and other people who work on it (being open source, many contributors aren't Google employees) did not make it what it is?
That's like saying... <any product> would be irrelevant if <those who made it> didn't make it as good as it is. It is a true statement, but how is it useful?
The things I care about can't be fixed, because they are fundamentally wrong in Go, they are not just some little oversight.
> I already prefer it over many other languages.
If I would start aiming low enough, I could also certainly find languages which are even worse than Go.
Honestly, I don't care. I prefer languages which do things better than X, not languages which are less worse than X.
> You mean... [...]
Eh no? I meant what I said. If the people who created Go wouldn't have been able to leverage the Google name (either by working at a company or by Google saying "don't use our brand for your toy projects") nobody would have cared.
But people said "OMG, Google invented online search!!! Then–by definition–they have to be language design experts, too!!!" and the tragedy unfolded.
Just out of curiosity, what language(s) do you prefer to use over Go?
> Eh no? I meant what I said. If the people who created Go wouldn't have been able to leverage the Google name (either by working at a company or by Google saying "don't use our brand for your toy projects") nobody would have cared.
I have a very good counter-example for you. Google also made Dart. I have no interest in Dart and I don't think it's anywhere near as good as Go from what I can tell about it.
That's not a counter-example (necessary vs. sufficient).
This is a false analogy because there are significant differences between "Java-1.0 style programming" and Go.
> Yes, there are reasons why the intended audience of Go just didn't care and Go is mostly used PHP, JavaScript, Python, Ruby etc, developers today.
Why do you feel the need to bin people? I'm a Haskell programmer and yet I love Go. In your world view, this is an impossibility. But maybe I've given you too much credit.
Go is absolutely preferred by people building real solutions to real problems. Pure, idealized languages like Haskell seem to be preferred by people who don't actually do anything with it, but instead talk about it. It is the "big brother" language.
I don't mean this dismissively, though it invariably sounds that way, but there is a huge divide between things that actually get things done, and things that you can debate the intricacies of for weeks on end while you foment that grand plan that you'll never actually pursue.
Though I will add that your nonsensical, ignorant simplification and mischaracterization of Go merely belies the fact that you have virtually no real knowledge of it at all, beyond probably some rubbed off "knowledge" from advocacy boards.
Please stop, you're making yourself look stupid. Plenty of people create real solutions to real problems in Haskell every single day.
Because you like fancy numbers, let's assume you probably rate a 7 on being butthurt.
Be sure to log into your alt now. I have a feeling you go through accounts to evade hellbannings.