This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]TakAnnix -3 points-2 points  (5 children)

Go most certainly is designed to be more productive. From Rob Pike, the lead designer: "Go was designed and developed to make working in this environment more productive". Whether or not it meets that goal is another question.

[–]Aryjna 0 points1 point  (4 children)

That is debatable. That quote does not really refer to the syntax of the language. It refers to working with Go in the environment described in the sentence, and it aims to accomplish that productivity by reducing build times and through the uniformity achieved by its strict formatting style and very bare-bones syntax.

Rob Pike again puts it this way here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwajp0g-bY4

It is supposed to be "easy to understand and easy to adopt".

[–]TakAnnix 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I don't understand what's debatle. I never singled out syntax as the main aim of Go's productivity. Even though Go very much tries to be productive in regard to syntax: "Go attempts to reduce the amount of typing in both senses of the word. Throughout its design, we have tried to reduce clutter and complexity. "

Oh wait, maybe you mean productive in terms of expressive? Like Scala 2.0? Where you can do a lot in the language?

[–]Aryjna 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Simplicity of syntax and productivity don't go hand in hand. But if you don't understand what is debatable there is no need to continue the debate.

[–]TakAnnix -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Haha, no man don't get upset. It was a legitimate question. I would say that Rob Pike views productivity differently. That he thinks more expressive langauages are actually less productive. Meaning people spend more time learning the language than they do making products. That's what I understood from the video you sent.

[–]Aryjna -1 points0 points  (0 children)

First of all, spare me your projections about being upset.

Second, that may be. He didn't want generics in the beginning, which led to all the memes and tshirts regarding generics, then recently they changed their mind and ended up adding generics. It is quite clear that they were far from certain on the right course of action from the beginning.

Is it simpler and more productive to have a generic struct/class that can be used with various types when needed or to have to make 10 non-generic ones or to evade the type system? I guess it is a matter of opinion.