| > This article was, yes, a little aggressive in tone A little? "[...] but I remember fondly the time an audience member asked the Go team "why did you choose to ignore any research about type systems since the 1970s"?" "Unless you're out for confirmation bias, that whole article is a very compelling argument against using Go for that specific problem." "[...] and tooling that would make C developers jealous, if they bothered looking outside their bubble." "[...] and most importantly, you adopted a language that happened by accident." "Evidently, the Go team didn't want to design a language.
[...]
"And so they didn't. They didn't design a language. It sorta just "happened"." "And breaking down an argument to its smallest pieces, rebutting them one by one, is a self-defense tactic used by those who cannot afford to adjust their position in the slightest. " "We've reached the fifth stage of grief: acceptance." "Because it has been decided that abstractions are for academics and fools [...]" > [...] but presented very honest and accurate information about a language that the author clearly has experience in. It's biased flamebait, just like the original article. > It seems like a lot of the people complaining in the comments didn't actually read the article. The author even explains how those who have bought in to Go may not want to hear what they're saying and it's right. No one wants to hear that their baby is ugly but sometimes it's the truth. > > To those who do use Go: someone can call your baby ugly and you can still love it. Sure, I'd love to read such a well-considered article. Please link any you know of below. Here's an exemplary article that managed to criticize Go without evoking a flamewar ([1]): https://gitlab.com/esr/reposurgeon/-/blob/master/GoNotes.ado... I pose that if you present valid arguments in a reasonable, intellectually-curious way, people will respond positively. But if you set out on a holy war instead, well... [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29494136 |