Find an objective flaw.
Find an objective flaw
Christian Foster
Other urls found in this thread:
techempower.com
twitter.com
Wyatt Walker
Looks pretty good from what I can tell. The structs are pretty nice so OOPajeets can't create classes for everything. I just wish you could put predicates on the structs like CLOS.
Austin King
I like it
Anthony Cox
>no ternary operator
>no proper error handling
>no pattern matching
>no filter, reduce, flatMap etc without libraries
And despite all that C# and Java outperform Golang. Pathetic techempower.com
Ethan Nelson
It avoids useful syntax like ternaries, and has a compiler that throws errors (not warnings) for banal things like unused variables, yet it has fucking goto. It hampers people who just want to get something done while still enabling idiots to make spaghetti.
Also the type system and error handling are fucking garbage.
Lincoln Nguyen
no true generics
William Davis
lolwut
Carter Perez
>unused variables help you get something done
Clean your code bucko
Nolan Evans
You're missing the point: it's cognitive dissonant design.
If the programmer is an idiot that cannot be trusted, why give them the most easily abused possible feature (even in a limited form)? If they're not, why throw a hissy fit over such minor things?
Jordan Thomas
Google. Yes. It's an objective flaw.
Brandon Diaz
what's a predicate?
Matthew James
Robert Pike
Aiden Cox
>Clean your code bucko
Nicholas Foster
I think they are like lambdas or closures. Though I don't think predicates can capture outside variables
Ian Walker
Because an unused variable is always an error. Gotos can sometimes be appropriate.
>the programmer is an idiot that cannot be trusted,
I'm pretty certain that is not the philosophy behind Go nor it is the reason to have memory safety features. I'm also pretty certain you're aware you're using dishonest hyperbole.
Brayden Kelly
>Because an unused variable is always an error.
Says who? A warning is perfectly appropriate for this.
Besides, dipshits will just use _ everywhere and dump errors in the trash.
>Gotos can sometimes be appropriate.
Fine, then give me a language that doesn't over-value simplicity.
>I'm pretty certain that is not the philosophy behind Go nor it is the reason to have memory safety features. I'm also pretty certain you're aware you're using dishonest hyperbole.
"The key point here is our programmers are Googlers, they’re not researchers. They’re typically, fairly young, fresh out of school, probably learned Java, maybe learned C or C++, probably learned Python. They’re not capable of understanding a brilliant language but we want to use them to build good software. So, the language that we give them has to be easy for them to understand and easy to adopt." – Rob Pike
Eli Cruz
notice how your objective criticisms are being ignored by op
gotards utterly assblasted and btfo
Colton Anderson
>Says who?
Go was made for readable code. That's why it forces a specific syntax and also forces unused variables. You have to think of go as a tool for enterprise products, not a tool for your hello world project
Ryder Wilson
>Says who?
Me.
Justin Jenkins
I thought I'd hate it, but after being handed a massive Go codebase and working on it for some years, I do see the advantages of its "worse is better" approach. It's way easier to dive into some existing thing made by someone else, or yourself, and extend it.
I still think there should be some kind of shorthand to avoid having to write if err != nil { return } a trillion times, though. Like a "!" postfix operator or something.
Colton Torres
Writing GO ebuilds for Gentoo is a pain
Eli Walker
go is bad because I am 1337 and know all the optimization flags for g++