Richard Bucker

GoLang - leave leave the cruft at the door

Posted at — Sep 18, 2013

It’s hard to take an programmer and would-be technical author seriously who lists MS Office tools on his resume. (now I need to go back and check my resume) But what is really annoying is that one author wants the go team to add Generics and the other is looking for some Object-Oriented features. I’m not an expert on the GoLang mission goals, however, from my vantage neither G or OO are particularly interesting… and if I needed them I’d go back to writing in Java.I’d prefer that the GoLang team focus on some more pragmatic ideas. I find myself using interface{} and reflection more than I want. I’m not certain if that’s because I’m trying to circumvent some language feature or if this is the natural way to solve my class of problems; in either case I’d prefer that the GoLang team make the corrections but it’s not important as I like it.Another statement comes to mind. Something like: GoLang was not designed to be terse but correct. (or something like that.) I just don’t see G or OO making GoLang more¬†correct.