[fileeditview]

> Go [...], so developers can still produce excellent tools with its limitations.

I really found "still" to be funny because I think for many Go devs (including me) the simplicity and lack of features especially enables us to create more easily.

It's the opposite of standing in front of giant fridge shelves in the supermarket with 100+ kinds of yoghurt where you have a hard time deciding. You only have a few choices so you just go ahead and pick one/just do it.

Forgive my bad analogy.

[fgimian]

Totally fair point. Minimalism can be extremely liberating and in fact, it's something I apply to many other areas of my life.

But when it came to Go, I personally found myself battling the language as a result, rather than being more productive with it.

Ultimately if it makes you more productive, then that's awesome and that's all that matters.

[flavio81]

>I really found "still" to be funny because I think for many Go devs (including me) the simplicity and lack of features especially enables us to create more easily.

Yeah man, it must be so fun doing large-scale construction work with just a hammer and a shovel; so easy to use, so easy to learn. Who needs caterpillars, pneumatic drills and such.

Last time I checked, Brainfuck is easier to learn than Go (more simplicity!!!, and runs in even more platforms.

[fileeditview]

Your reply seems a little emotional.. I wonder why. Nobody is forcing Go on you. You can do all large-scale construction work with greater tools like Lisp or Haskell as it is commonly done.

I don't agree that Go has only "a hammer and a shovel". It has at least a saw in its toolbox too.

On a more serious note.. fun is highly subjective and the brainfuck / simplicity argument is just useless.

[ecnahc515]

The Amish manage to build large barns entirely like this in much less time than it would take the average construction firm. It depends heavily on what you're building on if you actually need a lot of those tools.

Just like if you're building a small tool to wrap another you might just choose to use bash over Java, it all comes down to what you need most commonly vs what would "be nice to have".

[flavio81]

>>large-scale construction work

>build large barns entirely

Not the same 'large-scale' construction work I had in mind.

[pjmlp]

I program since 1986, had lots of fun around 1995 using Oberon system, one of Go's influences.

So naturally I used many programming languages with Go's limited set of features, which doesn't mean I want to return to those days.

[fileeditview]

I'm not sure what your point is.. is it: "More features are better"?

I started programming a few years later than you.. first on Atari ST (Basic) then later in DOS (Pascal). I often wish myself back to these systems when I see today's bloated stacks of crap (obviously this does not apply to everything).

I don't think this is relevant for the original discussion though..

[pjmlp]

My point is ignoring features largely proven in mainstream languages is bad.

Even the last version of Turbo Pascal for MS-DOS (7.0) was more feature rich, ignoring the lack of GC for a moment.

[sriram_malhar]

Wut?

[flavio81]

What he said. Turbo Pascal 7 a better designed language than Go, for the most part.

[sriram_malhar]

I'd like an example or two.

[patchguard]

Assembly also lacks features.