[_a_a_a_]

Do we have to do the "I don't really get it so nobody else should have it" kind of thing. I have a reasonable level of experience with FP and a lot of general experience (I'm not someone who "read a blog post", I've used it commercially) and I find that it's very handy at the right time. So it can be abused like anything else. So people can write over-complex stuff, true, so blame the language because it's easier than addressing the root problem which is people (it's always people isn't it). In a good language (Scala) it really makes a difference.

Please dial back your casual critiques.

> This is exactly what I was afraid of when generics were introduced

Good god. IDK, perhaps hardware would better suit your skill set? It certainly scares me off, but you might have a good mind for it.

[monksy]

I think you should realize is theres a mindset in go. They're highly opinionated about how you structure code, how you format your code (capitalization on all functions as a means to express public/private, tabs, etc), and how they want it to look. It's also designed to be basically a toy language to "make programming easier". They don't want language improvements like this for the most part.

The creator made it because: "The key point here is our programmers are Googlers, they’re not researchers. They’re typically, fairly young, fresh out of school, probably learned Java, maybe learned C or C++, probably learned Python. They’re not capable of understanding a brilliant language but we want to use them to build good software. So, the language that we give them has to be easy for them to understand and easy to adopt. – Rob Pike 1"

[_a_a_a_]

> They’re typically, fairly young, fresh out of school

Okay, thanks for clarifying and snakes and ladders is a great game for kids but how long do kids remain kids? They don't and they shouldn't. They don't need constraining for long.

> 're highly opinionated about how you structure code, how you format your code (capitalization on all functions as a means to express public/private, tabs, etc), and how they want it to look.

And as a professional programmer I couldn't give a toss about this, I just want people to be consistent and sensible, and that means useful comments, documentation, a test suite, specs, not going insane on any particular style like OO/FP. You have to trust the programmer in the end cos all the guidelines in the world won't cure stupidity.

[monksy]

I'm not sure how I'm replying to your message.

However the quote was made by the creator, not me. It's pretty frustrating that the justification and entire philosophy of the language surrounded is "we can't get better at this because it requires work" (Queue up the next few replies to me from people that say "but needless complexity and business value" )

> nd as a professional programmer I couldn't give a toss about this, I just want people to be consistent and sensible, and that means useful comments, documentation, a test suite, specs, not going insane on any particular style like OO/FP. You have to trust the programmer in the end cos all the guidelines in the world won't cure stupidity.

I agree with you. For the most part the industry has had expected language style guide lines (See the Java Style guide) and has had tools that support opting out of guidelines and defining organizational or project based expectations. This is not the case in Go. Gofmt will break your spaces decision and go to tabs. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7914523) Their response is they don't give a flip.

[_a_a_a_]

Okay, by stating their position I took it that you were supporting their position, which I see now was my misunderstanding. Gotcha, and thanks

[cle]

> Do we have to do the "I don't really get it so nobody else should have it" kind of thing.

Do we have to do the ad hominem thing? I studied FP and type theory in grad school. It's possible to know about FP and not want to use it in software engineering.

[_a_a_a_]

Okay, let's do it. ISTM you started the ad hom with loose accusations of people reading blog posts, ignoring that many people actually have solid commercial experience with it and are being "actually being productive" with it, nor did you justify your view they were "productivity sinks", so I couldn't take you seriously.

Then it got even harder with you dissing generics, which are so fundamentally valuable, such a labour-saver, that the idea of programming being better without them is beyond my ken.

So please lay out your case and I'd be willing to talk.