Gary Willoughby: "Why Go's design is a disservice to intelligent programmers"

[Chris via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Thursday, 26 March 2015 at 11:29:20 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad 
wrote:
> On Thursday, 26 March 2015 at 10:17:42 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>> On Wednesday, 25 March 2015 at 22:30:15 UTC, Ola Fosheim 
>> Grøstad wrote:
>>> Downplaying other languages makes the D crowd look 
>>> desperate...
>>
>> Heh, there were whole sites like phpain (can't find it now) 
>> and something similar for C++.
>
> The feature set of C++ does cause maintenance issues in real 
> world codebases if you let programmers roam about freely and 
> "redefine" the syntax/semantics. More so than C with it's 
> limited feature set. Are you sure that D does not have similar 
> issues? I have no idea how Go fares, but orthogonal simplicity 
> could be an advantage in real world code bases where you read 
> code other people have written/mutated.
>
> What I find interesting is that Python also has a feature set 
> for redefining semantics that should cause C++ like issues. 
> Still, I find most Python libraries I use to be fairly clean 
> and intuitive. Maybe the fact that Python is untyped and 
> non-performance-oriented makes programmers constrain themselves 
> more from producing spaghetti libraries...?

Further down the road, people will ask for more features in Go, 
and there will be patches and more patches, until we'll have 
Go++. This, or they won't get the features and move on to other 
language. Of course, Google is trying to prevent this by binding 
as many users as possible right now, so it will be hard to leave. 
The oldest trick in the IT hat.

... or Google abandons Go! Ha ha ha.