There's no question that Rust and Haskell have better tools than C++ for abstracting code. Go is just demonstrating that you can write great software without the aid (and cost) of generics.
What is Go demonstrating about programming without generics that Lisp, Java (pre-2004), Python and tons of other languages haven't already demonstrated?
Nothing, thats the point.. its not language that the creators did because they are vain, or want to prove they are smart, or know what beauty is.. its a language that are created to get things done! the beauty of it its the same beauty that we see in Unix or C.. its simplicity..
Dear God.. I dont know why so many programming languages anyway to do the same thing all over again.. just because of the sake of the sintax or the type system.. or because the guy fell sooo smart because hes using FP.. so he can fell instelectually superior to all human beings
Since C.. its all the same programming paradigm.. the rest is just detail.. the only langs that have its own way that are not cover by the C paradigm are Lisps
Really my language of dreams.. will be to use notes like in a music sheet.. this is a really different paradigm.. or use DSP with just I/O signals.. this is something new.. the rest is just vanity..
And i dont want to be the rat lab of some language designer full of himself, that doesnt think of me, the poor programmer that has to maintain the code in the lang he creates!!
This is the unix philosophy... theres too much noise, im sure these are the kind of things that make people run away from technology...
We need to somehow find our way to simplicity.. for our own sake
Im sure some languages, are created just for the sake of sintax, others to prove a marginal point, and others because the author want to be a tech celebrity.. this is "the noise" i was refering to..
We can spot really important languages, that actually put something new in the table.. with real originality and genius.. and the immitators that follow
The clear evidence to what im talking about, is that if you think in a niche that you wnat to create a program, you will have 3 or more langs to choose..
Choice is good? not always.. because once we create codebases in the langs we choose we are trapped..
All the languages we heard of, create programs somehow, otherwise we wouldnt know about.. but some are more pragmatic than others..
My sentence was to explain that the authors of the language were thinking more in the enginnering aspect, than in some theoretical or research
There are a lot of research languages out there... so in my point of view, they were not created with a more pragmatic goal..
They are cool and will push the envelope.. sure! but i dont understand the elitism here, trying to bash things that were created thinking more in the enginnering axis..
while puttting some "not working yet" but "research using the poor programmers as rat labs" in a pedestal..and in the same level as something that works, because it were design to work in a more conservative matter
Is there demonstrably great software written in Go yet? I've seen some people using it but I've yet to see a "killer app" (the way e.g. MLDonkey convinced me I should take OCaml seriously, or Pandoc convinced me I should take Haskell seriously).
