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

[via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Saturday, 28 March 2015 at 02:31:37 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
> Fair points that I wouldn't argue with (although I think 
> predicting when one will finish something entirely new is a 
> mugs game - another reason to favour prototyping and rapid 
> iteration when possible).

Yet you have to if you are to get a fixed price contract.

> on credentials.  And if you have a large code base it is not 
> like a new guy can just dive in, anyway.  There is a signalling 
> effect at work also, at least for the time being.

But that is what the Go authors claim that they are aiming for. 
To judge it you will have to look at real projects and how they 
fare. Some teams claim that they are getting good results with 
Go, whether that is a result of enthusiasm or language qualities 
is another issue. But they do appear.

If you are to evaluate a project you have to look at the project 
goals. To evaluate Go you have to look at what their design goals 
are.

> I am curious about something, if I might ask.  You seem like 
> you feel let down by something about D.  Ie you give various

D is going too wide, and therefore does not move. ~9 years ago it 
was announced as a production level language that could be used 
to replace C++. Last year there was a move to support better 
memory management, but it has since halted because there is an 
unwillingness to change the language. Which is ok, if you just 
say D2 is all about GC.

If you want to excel as a programming language you need to focus 
on a few areas and be really good in those before you expand into 
the next one. It is a fairly deep rooted development process 
issue that needs addressing if D is to reach a wide audience.