|
|
|
|
|
by whateveracct
2471 days ago
|
|
Go is good at getting things done..until it isn't and you bump your head on the ceiling. I know Go and Haskell equally well, and I get just as much shit done in Haskell and don't have to be a copy-paste machine sometimes. There are many benefits of Haskell and like-minded languages besides being "beautiful." Feels like if the Go designers had the sense to include parametric polymorphism and sums (aka proven features from the 70's whose main "downside" is being weird to Go's target audience), it would be a great middleground. |
|
Missing polymorphism is a valid complaint but it hasn’t had the impact I thought it would.
Meanwhile, some of the programs I had written in Haskell I’ve rewritten in Go, e.g. due to problems with the use of finalizers (causing crashes!) in Haskell. You can chalk this up to poor library design but it simply isn’t a problem in Golang, which seems to avoid the finalizers more than other languages.
I’m going to continue using both Go and Haskell, I’m happy with both.