←back to thread

Go is still not good

(blog.habets.se)
644 points ustad | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.284s | source
Show context
figmert ◴[] No.44983166[source]
Has Go become the new PHP? Every now and then I see an article complaining about Go's shortcomings.
replies(6): >>44983193 #>>44983234 #>>44983422 #>>44983440 #>>44983954 #>>44985162 #
pydry ◴[] No.44983234[source]
Go is a pretty good example of how mediocre technology that would never have taken off on its own merits benefits from the rose tinted spectacles that get applied when FAANG starts a project.
replies(2): >>44983334 #>>44983421 #
christophilus ◴[] No.44983334[source]
I don’t buy this at all. I picked up Go because it has fast compilation speed, produces static binaries, can build useful things without a ton of dependencies, is relatively easy to maintain, and has good tooling baked in. I think this is why it gained adoption vs Dart or whatever other corporate-backed languages I’m forgetting.
replies(2): >>44983391 #>>44983553 #
pydry ◴[] No.44983391[source]
I tried out one project because of these attributes and then scrapped it fairly quickly in favor of rust. Not enough type safety, too much verbosity. Too much fucking "if err != nil".

The language sits in an awkward space between rust and python where one of them would almost always be a better choice.

But, google rose colored specs...

replies(2): >>44983644 #>>44990776 #
christophilus ◴[] No.44983644[source]
I’m almost with you. If there was a language with a fast compiler, excellent tooling, a robust standard library, static binaries, and an F#-like type system, I’d never use anything else.

Rust simply doesn’t cut it for me. I’m hoping Roc might become this, but I’m not holding my breath.

replies(2): >>44984173 #>>44984539 #
1. gf000 ◴[] No.44984173[source]
OCaml? Possibly Haskell as well?