This is why I love Go. Nobody was asking for this, but they took the time to do it right and continue to Push go as a memory safe, high-level systems language.
This is kind of the opposite of Go. Not giving people what they are asking for.
There are pros and cons of course. You don't have 17 different ways to iterate over an array, so that's nice. But you also went 13 years without generics, despite them being one of the most requested features, because the designers didn't want that complexity inside Go.
Overall I think Go is better for this philosophy but there are times where the language is clearly written more for its maintainers than it's users.
Some of the concerns around generics and why it took so long were for the users as well. One of the biggest draws to Go has always been that you get the performance of a compiled language and yet compile times are so low that it can feel like you're developing with an interpreted language. The design of generics needed to maintain the compile time advantage or else it wouldn't feel like Go any more.
Languages like CLU, Ada, Delphi, Standard ML, OCaml, D, were having Go like fast compilation times, with generics, some of them decades before Go was created on much weaker hardware.
u8 · · focus · HN ↗
nonethewiser · · focus · HN ↗
There are pros and cons of course. You don't have 17 different ways to iterate over an array, so that's nice. But you also went 13 years without generics, despite them being one of the most requested features, because the designers didn't want that complexity inside Go.
Overall I think Go is better for this philosophy but there are times where the language is clearly written more for its maintainers than it's users.
andrewstuart2 · · focus · HN ↗
pjmlp · · focus · HN ↗