What’s Wrong with OOP and FP

[Paulo Pinto]

On Wednesday, 13 November 2013 at 03:46:17 UTC, logicchains wrote:
> There seem to be a lot of developers who genuinely believe that 
> Go increases their productivity, for what it's worth. This 
> thread is quite interesting: 
> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/golang-nuts/29RsB_nfTYA; 
> a developer there finds the productivity benefits from using Go 
> sufficient to justify going through the process of converting 
> objdump'd c assembly into opcodes written in Plan 9 assembly 
> syntax just to use AVX2 instructions (which the Plan 9 
> assembler used by Go doesn't support). Not to mention that 
> they're also directly writing assembly themselves, due to the 
> Go compiler's lack of intrinsics.
>
> On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 12:24:23 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 12 November 2013 at 11:39:23 UTC, Luís Marques 
>> wrote:
>>> Also, in the spirit of non-technical discussion, pro-D stuff, 
>>> see slide 26: 
>>> http://www.slideshare.net/jpetazzo/docker-and-go-why-did-we-decide-to-write-docker-in-go
>>
>> Yes, Go has a big PR rolling machine on the web.
>>
>> Given its spartan set of features and religious decisions, I 
>> doubt anyone would care, if it wasn't being developed at 
>> Google.
>>
>> On the other hand, more people using strong typed languages 
>> with GC support as C and C++ replacement, is always positive.
>>
>> Hopefully D will also have a piece of the pie.
>>
>> --
>> Paulo


It just shows the kind of distortion field Go developers suffer 
from.