[HN Gopher] Less is exponentially more (2012)
___________________________________________________________________
Less is exponentially more (2012)
Author : pieterr
Score : 28 points
Date : 2022-11-13 17:22 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (commandcenter.blogspot.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (commandcenter.blogspot.com)
| karmakaze wrote:
| This bit doesn't make sense to me:
|
| > Early in the rollout of Go I was told by someone that he could
| not imagine working in a language without generic types. As I
| have reported elsewhere, I found that an odd remark.
|
| > But more important, what it says is that types are the way to
| lift that burden. Types. Not polymorphic functions or language
| primitives or helpers of other kinds, but types.
|
| Go always had generics: slice, map, channel. Writing without
| those I also could not imagine working in.
|
| And if anyone's curious how instead of making Go, C++ could be
| refactored into a smaller cleaner language, see "Can C++ be 10x
| Simpler and Safer?"[0]. It even allows for a memory arena that's
| managed by gc.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33573456
| anon23anon wrote:
| So has Go still held true to this minimalist philosophy?
| doctor_eval wrote:
| Well, I think so. I only became a Gopher about 5 years ago and
| the pace of change has actually been faster than I expected,
| but it always seems to be in the direction of simplification.
| Examples of things that made life easier since I started using
| Go are modules and go:embed.
|
| Of course, an exception is generics, which I haven't yet had
| much to do with, and while it potentially scratches a personal
| itch of mine (I always felt that builtins like 'append' and
| 'len' were overly magical), I worry that it's a complication.
|
| But only time will tell.
| cma wrote:
| > At this point I asked myself a question: Did the C++ committee
| really believe that was wrong with C++ was that it didn't have
| enough features?
|
| In the end I think c++11 did make things way better and less
| error prone than before, largely through new features.
| pencilguin wrote:
| Yes. Programming in C++11 was an overwhelmingly better
| experience than before. C++14 is, additionally, much more fun.
|
| Coding C++17 is better than C++14, mainly for its destructured
| bindings and improved variadics.
|
| Coding C++20 is much better, again. chiefly because of
| Concepts, but co-routines will become increasingly important as
| library support surfaces.
|
| It has been a long time since I shipped a memory usage fault.
| Languages that promise to make those impossible are hyped now,
| but their promoters are "fighting the last war".
|
| What makes the difference today is productivity. C++ is still
| leading that charge. Hype notwithstanding, more people take up
| programming C++ professionally _in any given week_ than the
| total paid to code Rust. Soon, many of those Rust coders will
| begin to jump ship for newer languages.
| rhn_mk1 wrote:
| What makes you say that C++ is leading in productivity? I'm
| not seeing C++ web applications, or machine learning
| frameworks. From my own experience, managed languages are
| easier to write for as well, especially with the average C++
| code base which barely touches upon C++14.
|
| If productivity is "the current war", then languages like Go,
| Python, Rust, Elixir, and TypeScript are definitely fighting
| it, and it's not clear to me that any has significant lead in
| anything but limited areas.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-11-13 23:01 UTC)