Posts like this really return me the confidence in the future of Go the language.
I very much wish Go to succeed, it's built on a few nice ideas, but where it currently is it has a number of usability impairments that stop me from wanting to work with it.
But I see that these impairments are seen as problems by key developers, and work is underway to eventually fix these problems. (And this is besides the "routine", incremental but very important improvements, such as GC or stdlib.)
> But I see that these impairments are seen as problems by key developers, and work is underway to eventually fix these problems.
What will inevitably happen is that Pike et al will argue that such things are merely problems because "you're doing it wrong" or "there's no way to do this without any tradeoffs of any kind" (generics), and ultimately very little will change.
Russ Cox, the guy who wrote this post, is the technical lead for the Go project. He authored more of Go's code base than anyone else (by a huge margin). His opinion about these issues holds more weight than pretty much anyone. I wouldn't downplay it.
I very much wish Go to succeed, it's built on a few nice ideas, but where it currently is it has a number of usability impairments that stop me from wanting to work with it.
But I see that these impairments are seen as problems by key developers, and work is underway to eventually fix these problems. (And this is besides the "routine", incremental but very important improvements, such as GC or stdlib.)