What’s Wrong with OOP and FP

[logicchains]

On Wednesday, 13 November 2013 at 09:12:40 UTC, Jonathan M Davis 
wrote:
> Personally, I have no interest in it and think that its 
> designers made some
> very poor choices, but that doesn't mean that we should be 
> making fun of it or
> make fun of Google for being the place where the engineers who 
> created it
> work. The fact that Google let its engineers spend company time 
> on creating a
> new programming langueg says very good things about Google, 
> even if the
> language itself ultimately isn't what we'd like.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

For the record, I wasn't making fun of Go when I spoke of its 
readability being a particular virtue. If I was managing a large 
project with programmers of divergent ability then I might well 
pick it for that reason alone. The design choices might seem poor 
from the perspective of someone looking for a language that gives 
them lots of power, but if you look at it from the perspective of 
a language designed to minimise the power of co-workers (and 
anybody else) to write difficult-to-understand code, it's 
designed magnificently.

An example of this is how, in order to avoid ambiguity, both 
automatic dereferencing and the -> operator from C were omitted 
from the language. This means that if pt is a pointer to a 
struct, then I have to write (*pt).X to access field X of that 
struct, as opposed to pt.X in D or pt->X in C, making it 
completely clear to anybody glancing at the code that pt is a 
pointer.