[qznc]

I'd argue that in most cases "easy > simple" with the definitions of Rich Hickey. Easy means you understand it quickly. Simple means it uses few concepts.

Go doesn't want to use the concept of generics. However, if your code uses "List<IP>" instead of "List", it is easier to understand, because it additionally tells you it is about IPs. Python is a language which tries to be easy by resembling pseudo code.

If you really want simple, you could as well use SML, TCL, or Lua.

[justincormack]

Indeed Lua came to mind with his "Dave can’t think of any language in his lifetime that didn’t start out with simplicity as a core goal. Yet he can’t think of any language in his lifetime that didn’t eventually become more complex and “powerful”." quote - it has stayed simple and removed features.

[masklinn]

> If you really want simple, you could as well use SML, TCL, or Lua.

And if you truly want simple, you use Smalltalk, Scheme or Forth.

[kazagistar]

I dunno about smalltalk, but Scheme and Forth start off simple until a programmer writes tens of thousands of lines of code, at which point it gets harder to read and follow the code exactly.

[qznc]

No matter how much convoluted code your write, it is still a "simple language". Your code however is not necessarily simple or easy.

[masklinn]

That tends to be the flip side of the "simple language".

And at least the 3 languages quoted are so simple that they must provide the tools for building new abstractions (which are the tools for building the language in the first place), so you can cut down on code by building a reusable toolbox of abstractions.

Go is complex enough that they can get away without that, and even get praised for pushing the complexity to userland code and providing no way for users to manage that complexity.

[rakoo]

> Go doesn't want to use the concept of generics.

How many times do we have to read this... It's not that Go doesn't want to use generics, it's that the use of generics doesn't come for free.

For generics to be introduced, the gain have to overcome the costs. It seems we're not there yet (I'll be honest, I didn't follow all the arguments closely)