Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

You say that like mediocre is a compliment. But I guess "mediocre" has been the best descriptor of Go from its inception.


Kind of, yes. Go has a specific goal - replace C++ for server-side web related stuff. It's supposed to be dull, boring, reliable, and suitable for use by large numbers of programmers doing that kind of work. It's a success at that.

Go got some things right, like "goroutines". Other languages are trying to add threads to a language with "async" type callbacks (Javascript), or "async" type callbacks to a language with threads (Python). Those concepts do not play well together, especially when retrofitted. Go does have a one-size-fits-most solution which handles the main use case - a server process handling a very large number of intermittently sending clients.

The same can be said of "functional" add-ons. Full-on functional languages can be OK, but functional features in an imperative language tend to be on the painful side syntactically. Retrofitting "functional" is even worse.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: