| ▲ | coin 7 months ago | |
Go is too minimalist in my opinion. It’s like time warping back to 2005. You want enums, nope. You want functional constructs (map, filter), nope. You want string array contains, nope. It can feel very limiting coming from newer languages designed in the last 10 years. | ||
| ▲ | desumeku 7 months ago | parent | next [-] | |
Functional programming is not "newer", it is as old as Lisp, which dates back to the 60s. The people who made Go simply decided that the language did not need those features. | ||
| ▲ | henryjcee 7 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
Strong, strong agree on this. That plus the verbosity really adds to the activation energy of getting things done. I reckon I end up writing (and having to read) 5x the lines of code for the same result that then ends up being less type safe and lacking null safety. I guess that's the price you pay for simplicity. | ||
| ▲ | thegeekpirate 7 months ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |
> You want enums, nope. It has enums, and if you want exhaustive checking, use golangci-lint (as every good gopher should be already, considering the language ensured tooling would be easy to write) https://golangci-lint.run/usage/linters/#exhaustive > You want functional constructs (map, filter), nope. There are libraries for map/filter (just make sure you use one with deforestation) > You want string array contains, nope. | ||
| ▲ | kgeist 7 months ago | parent | prev [-] | |
>You want string array contains, nope Go now has slices.Contains | ||