7 ms·

Probably a combination of both really. I get the sense that the 'Commander' hasn't done the requisite reading.

by yohanatan 12y ago

dsymonds 12y ago
I just asked him in person. He has.
- yohanatan 12y ago
  Only if you are inside the cult could you possibly believe that. Do you also think that Jim Jones was an expert on the New Testament teachings? If you take his word for it, of course he was.
enneff 12y ago
Anyone that knows Rob will tell you that you're simply wrong about this.
- yohanatan 12y ago
  Only if you are inside the cult could you possibly have that opinion. Do you also think that Jim Jones was an expert on the New Testament teachings? If you take his word for it, of course he was.
  - enneff 12y ago
    We (the Go team) regularly have conversations about all kinds of programming paradigms, because we're into that kind of stuff. Some of us really like functional programming languages. But Go is not that kind of language, so those primitives do not belong there. Go is not everything to everyone, and it would be a mistake to try to make it that way. That doesn't mean that we don't see those things as generally valuable, just not in this context.
    - yarou 12y ago
      A bit OT, but probably the biggest roadblock for me switching over to Go is the wonky syntax. Are there any plans to make Go more accessible to someone coming from more traditional languages? (i.e. like "do" notation in Haskell) I've done the Go tutorial about 5 times last I checked (seriously), and I just can't stomach the syntax. I may be tainted by my years of C, though.
      - enneff 12y ago
        You appear to know both Haskell and C, but find Go's syntax hard to deal with? This is one of the weirdest Go complaints I've read, for sure. Syntactically, it's just one of the many Algol/pascal-style imperative languages of the last 40 years. Most people get used to it quickly. At least it's nice and unambiguous.
      - NateDad 12y ago
        What?! If anything, your use of C should make Go's syntax really familiar (aside from putting the name before the type, which doesn't take long to get used to). It's exactly like any other C-like imperative language. C, C++, Java, C#, even Javascript. Those are pretty traditional langauges. Haskell is not what I think most people would call a "traditional language". What exactly is your problem with the syntax?
        yarou 12y ago
        My point about Haskell was not to say that it was more intuitive for imperative programmers, rather, it was to demonstrate a syntactic sugar construct that eases programmers in. Because Go's syntax is so similar to C, it is confusing because as a coder, I can only context switch a finite amount of times.
      - gorhill 12y ago
        > I just can't stomach the syntax. I may be tainted by my years of C, though. I can't relate to this. That's exactly my years of C that makes Go quite attractive to me. The way I see Go is that it allows me to code as close to metal as C, but without the pains of C -- headers, make file/dependencies, memory management, and more.
hahainternet 12y ago
When people disagree with you, that does not mean they are ignorant.
yohanatan 12y ago
To the siblings to this post: it seems rather unlikely as the research is being generated at a rate that far exceeds any one person's ability to read it (especially when they are already busy marrying C and CSP [which is easy to build as a library or add-on to any other existing language] & type theory isn't their specialty).
- enneff 12y ago
  So, you're criticising someone for not doing something that's impossible? Just stop.
  - dang 12y ago
    It was at least interesting how quickly those goalposts moved.
  - yohanatan 12y ago
    The portion of that material which is requisite is obviously a strict subset of the entirety of the material. But, for one to flippantly say "I've read it" without even establishing what "it" is, seems a bit dismissive and duplicitous to me. Regardless it is obvious to anyone who is knowledgeable that Rob Pike has not read what most who are in the know would consider "requisite". Also, if you take a look at the thread I posted, his attitude and approach re: map, filter & reduce doesn't come across as the most academic or well thought out.
    - enneff 12y ago
      Rob didn't really say anything about map, filter, and reduce in that thread. His comments should be taken as being in addition to the earlier comments by Ian Lance Taylor, another member of the Go team. You should address the gaps in your own knowledge before criticising others. For instance, you're obviously unaware that Rob designed and implemented a whole language based around map/reduce/filter style operations: http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/research.google.com/sv//archive/sawzall-sciprog.pdf http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrust...

Probably a combination of both really. I get the sense that the 'Commander' hasn't done the requisite reading.

dsymonds 12y ago

I just asked him in person. He has.

yohanatan 12y ago
Only if you are inside the cult could you possibly believe that. Do you also think that Jim Jones was an expert on the New Testament teachings? If you take his word for it, of course he was.

enneff 12y ago

Anyone that knows Rob will tell you that you're simply wrong about this.

yohanatan 12y ago
Only if you are inside the cult could you possibly have that opinion. Do you also think that Jim Jones was an expert on the New Testament teachings? If you take his word for it, of course he was.
- enneff 12y ago
  We (the Go team) regularly have conversations about all kinds of programming paradigms, because we're into that kind of stuff. Some of us really like functional programming languages. But Go is not that kind of language, so those primitives do not belong there. Go is not everything to everyone, and it would be a mistake to try to make it that way. That doesn't mean that we don't see those things as generally valuable, just not in this context.
  - yarou 12y ago
    A bit OT, but probably the biggest roadblock for me switching over to Go is the wonky syntax. Are there any plans to make Go more accessible to someone coming from more traditional languages? (i.e. like "do" notation in Haskell) I've done the Go tutorial about 5 times last I checked (seriously), and I just can't stomach the syntax. I may be tainted by my years of C, though.
    - enneff 12y ago
      You appear to know both Haskell and C, but find Go's syntax hard to deal with? This is one of the weirdest Go complaints I've read, for sure. Syntactically, it's just one of the many Algol/pascal-style imperative languages of the last 40 years. Most people get used to it quickly. At least it's nice and unambiguous.
    - NateDad 12y ago
      What?! If anything, your use of C should make Go's syntax really familiar (aside from putting the name before the type, which doesn't take long to get used to). It's exactly like any other C-like imperative language. C, C++, Java, C#, even Javascript. Those are pretty traditional langauges. Haskell is not what I think most people would call a "traditional language". What exactly is your problem with the syntax?
      - yarou 12y ago
        My point about Haskell was not to say that it was more intuitive for imperative programmers, rather, it was to demonstrate a syntactic sugar construct that eases programmers in. Because Go's syntax is so similar to C, it is confusing because as a coder, I can only context switch a finite amount of times.
    - gorhill 12y ago
      > I just can't stomach the syntax. I may be tainted by my years of C, though. I can't relate to this. That's exactly my years of C that makes Go quite attractive to me. The way I see Go is that it allows me to code as close to metal as C, but without the pains of C -- headers, make file/dependencies, memory management, and more.

hahainternet 12y ago

When people disagree with you, that does not mean they are ignorant.

yohanatan 12y ago

To the siblings to this post: it seems rather unlikely as the research is being generated at a rate that far exceeds any one person's ability to read it (especially when they are already busy marrying C and CSP [which is easy to build as a library or add-on to any other existing language] & type theory isn't their specialty).

enneff 12y ago
So, you're criticising someone for not doing something that's impossible? Just stop.
- dang 12y ago
  It was at least interesting how quickly those goalposts moved.
- yohanatan 12y ago
  The portion of that material which is requisite is obviously a strict subset of the entirety of the material. But, for one to flippantly say "I've read it" without even establishing what "it" is, seems a bit dismissive and duplicitous to me. Regardless it is obvious to anyone who is knowledgeable that Rob Pike has not read what most who are in the know would consider "requisite". Also, if you take a look at the thread I posted, his attitude and approach re: map, filter & reduce doesn't come across as the most academic or well thought out.
  - enneff 12y ago
    Rob didn't really say anything about map, filter, and reduce in that thread. His comments should be taken as being in addition to the earlier comments by Ian Lance Taylor, another member of the Go team. You should address the gaps in your own knowledge before criticising others. For instance, you're obviously unaware that Rob designed and implemented a whole language based around map/reduce/filter style operations: http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrusted_dlcp/research.google.com/sv//archive/sawzall-sciprog.pdf http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrust...