[phyrog]

> I don't think you realize there's stuff way better then go out there.

Every language makes trade-offs. For you the trade-off Go makes is bad. I disagree. I like some languages better in certain parts, while I prefer Go's solution in other parts. It's all preference, there is almost never an objective "better" or "worse" like you seem to think.

> Golang packages are poorly designed

Agree to disagree.

[ninetyninenine]

Then you disagree with the majority of people. That's my point. This agree/disagree side lines the fact that people can be right or wrong. My claim is not only do you disagree, but you're wrong.

[phyrog]

Majority of what people? Get off your high horse, your opinion is not a fact. Give me objective metrics to measure how "good" a language or language feature is, otherwise you are just wrong.

I'm looking forward to trying out your own perfect language that is objectively the best for any use case ever and no one can find any faults with it. Because surely such a language exists.

[ninetyninenine]

>Majority of what people? Get off your high horse, your opinion is not a fact.

Just look at reality and how people organize things everywhere. It's arbitrary. Adults are placed in offices and kids are placed in schools. Then on family trees kids and Adults are organized by dependency. How people organize things in the REAL world is AN arbitrary choice. But in GO you have NO CHOICE. It has to be by family tree. That is NOT an opinion. Everything I said is FACT.

The metric is basically the entire world and everything in it and how we fundamentally type (aka organize) things within it. But if you want to get more specific just look at every other programming language except go and look at how the entire world uses folders in operating systems. These are tools to allow people to arbitrarily organize things.

>I'm looking forward to trying out your own perfect language that is objectively the best for any use case ever and no one can find any faults with it. Because surely such a language exists.

Don't have one. I'm just commenting on what I hate about golang.

[phyrog]

So a hand-wavy "look at the world bro" instead of actual metrics. Got it.

> I'm just commenting on what I hate about golang.

No you're not. You say Go (or a part of Go) is bad, which is vastly different. If you stuck to "I don't like it", you would not have gotten so much push back, but you insist in being right and everyone else is stupid and wrong.

[ninetyninenine]

Because metrics don’t exist. If the only way you can move forward and know something is because someone conducted some sort of statistical experiment with data analysis on it then I don’t even know how you get up in the morning. Do you need science to prove that when you jump off the bed there’s a floor that your feet will land on?

No you don’t. You’re not an idiot. It’s common sense that allows you to do this and it’s common sense that will allow you to see that the entire world works the way I said it does above. You don’t need science for this. At least most people don’t. Maybe you’re different and you need science to do an analysis for you before you open any door to make sure reality still exists behind it.

> No you're not. You say Go (or a part of Go) is bad, which is vastly different. If you stuck to "I don't like it", you would not have gotten so much push back, but you insist in being right and everyone else is stupid and wrong.

You’re right. Let me rephrase what I meant. I’m commenting about what is fundamentally terrible about golang and if you disagree then you're wrong because the overwhelming majority of the world would disagree.