On Sat, 18 Mar 2017 05:31:20 -0700 (PDT) mhhc...@gmail.com wrote: [...] > For those which are language designers, comparing the language to > such things > like haskell is made in an attempt to make the best language design > (small ego trip here ?), > not the most practical, effective IRL language. > IRL, we need both, a good language design to serve an efficient > programming experience. > But, as everything, too much this or that, this is not good. [...]
I'm afraid you failed to grasp what J.L. Andersen so well formulated (as usually), so here's my take at providing an executive summary :-) "It's next to impossible to reliably predict what properties of programming languages the future will require, and while Go has many excellent properties, Go is not everything, and there are a number of domains in which it won't shine or even fly at all." To put it even simpler, Go is a very good fit to what it's a very good fit right now, and in the near-term. All speculations about future are, well, pure speculations. ;-) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
