[mikebenfield]

Well, at the time I would have thought it was required for the language to become widely used. But since that's clearly not true I suppose I have to downgrade that statement to say it's required for me to write code in the langauge and not feel like I'm constantly banging my head against a wall.

Frankly, yeah, I think Go programmers are kind of stuck in the 1980s in some respects. This isn't something I'm completely clear about, but I feel like Go's developers are biased against anything that smells at all academic. So for instance they didn't want to implement a super fancy, cutting-edge type system. Which is somewhat understandable... but as a result they ignored 30 years of programming langauge research and implemented a primitive type system that basically provides nothing over C. I do not understand this mentality.

[nemo1618]

The payoff of the simpler type system is that people don't write posts like OP's about Go. The language has its rough edges, but it's not a brick wall the way Rust is -- you can learn the idioms and become a productive Go programmer very, very quickly. On top of that (or maybe as a related consequence), most Go code looks roughly the same. If you dive into the source of one of your project's dependencies, you aren't likely to find some esoteric or too-clever-by-half coding style. There are no fancy macros to untangle, because the language doesn't support them.

Writing that sort of clever, super-concise code scratches an itch that a lot of people have (myself included) but it's not something I want to encounter when I'm trying to debug something. When you're working with other people's code, you want it to be simple and consistent. That's what Go's primary strength is.

btw, I'll take this opportunity to plug my own "Go generics" solution: https://github.com/lukechampine/ply. It's like a Coffeescript for Go that lets you use stream HOFs like map/filter/reduce without any runtime cost.

[burntsushi]

I've used both Rust and Go daily for years (before they reached 1.0, respectively) and I'm generally happen with the experience that they give me. Not all languages need to have a type system as sophisticated as Rust's or Haskell's.

> but as a result they ignored 30 years of programming langauge research and implemented a primitive type system that basically provides nothing over C

As someone who also has a decent amount of C experience, I don't see how this is a reasonable conclusion to make. The first point in favor of Go is that it's mostly memory safe (sans data races), which is achieved not just with bounds checks, but with a stronger type system. The second point in favor of Go is that Go does have a limited form of polymorphism that is checked by the compiler. In C, the only way you get polymorphism is by subverting the type system entirely. Both of those points are huge, and there's undoubtedly a much longer list that I could craft of smaller benefits if I were so inclined.

As we march toward complex type systems that move more runtime errors to compile time, we must also be vigilant of the trade offs we're making. Moving things from runtime to compile time isn't necessarily free; there's almost always some new cognitive load that is implied. It's important because if that cognitive load is "too high," then people aren't going to switch to it, and no amount of navel gazing is going to fix that. This entire thread is a perfect demonstration of that trade off in action. On the one hand, we have the "clearly superior" Rust approach to error handling that checks a lot more at compile time than Go does, but on the other hand, Go programmers don't ever need to "learn error handling" at all. They have a simple convention with a reasonably low bug rate (IME, anyway).

We can't just judge programming languages by their theoretical strengths. We must also judge them by their practical strengths. And then we must do the impossible: balance them. Snubbing our collective noses isn't going to do any good. Our only hope is to understand why people are attracted to languages like Go (such as myself) and figure out how to reduce the aforementioned cognitive load without giving up those sweet sweet compile time checks. Rust is clearly pushing that boundary, and I'm happier for it.

[ralfn]

>On the one hand, we have the "clearly superior" Rust approach to error handling that checks a lot more at compile time than Go does, but on the other hand, Go programmers don't ever need to "learn error handling" at all. They have a simple convention with a reasonably low bug rate (IME, anyway).

I don't think you misjudges the differences in complexity here at all. But wouldn't that have more to do with the different approaches to memory management?

>aforementioned cognitive load without giving up those sweet sweet compile time checks

I would argue the cognitive load comes mostly from nominal typing and lack of type inference. A counter example would be the Crystal language which has a very strong type system, but is exposing barely any of it as 'added cognitive load'.

This correlation between 'cognitive load' and 'expressiveness of a typesystem' seems unfair. Having to keep track of all the patterns that are valid but not supported by the type system is also a type of added (hidden) complexity.

Even the poster-feature of Rust has a (IMO) much easier cousin with the same (and more) advantages called 'the Clean programming language' in the shape of 'uniqueness types'. And most of the complexity in Rust is the result of the type system not being expressive enough for how they are attempting to use it, rather than the opposite.

[burntsushi]

> But wouldn't that have more to do with the different approaches to memory management?

What makes you say that? Rust's approach guarantees more type invariants.

I don't buy for a second that type inference has much to do with this. Firstly, Rust has type inference, it just isn't global. Secondly, I've found that type inference everywhere makes the cognitive load much worse, not better.

And I wasn't actually drawing a correlation between cognitive load and expressiveness. Namely, expressiveness isn't the final word. Much of PL theory is devoted not just to improving expressiveness, but making that expressiveness more accessible to the masses. Compare Haskell with System F, for example.