* Their implementation sucks so much that most decently built
concurrency implementation will beat Go-routines by a wide
margin. Just have a look at all those people on the Go mailing
list whining about the scheduler. Not even talking about the
fact that building concurrency mechanisms into the language is
plain stupid. We all saw how well that worked out in plenty of
other languages before.
* You know why pretty much no one uses structural typing?
It's not because the “brilliant” designers of Go “invented” it,
it's because most language designers realized that it is a poor
idea before shipping the language. I think it is pretty telling
that in languages which support both nominal and structural
typing pretty much nobody is using structural typing.
* I'm not seeing how a language which requires passing around
void* pointers in every data-structure and casting at pretty
much every corner can be considered memory efficient.
* Hard-coding collection classes with special cased syntax into
the language, so that everyone who needs to have something
slightly different is completely fucked ... what is this? 1980?
* Their packaging system is an unmitigated failure. Nuff' said.
* Do they have a working Unicode implementation yet (I mean more
than the “We use UTF8 for strings ... which is like 0.5% of
what Unicode is about”)? What about (Big)Decimal? A working
date/calendar abstraction which isn't a terrible joke?
Take his criticism (not sure it even merits that title) with a grain of salt. Many people on HN and on the mailing list have sung the praises of Go's packaging system.
Yet another Go fanboy getting a bit defensive without having to add anything constructive?
If you actually checked your “claims” you would see that people are singing so many praises that the mailing list is continually filled with proposals to fix the worst parts of Go's packaging system.
Your post has no substance, other than to say some people on the mailing list don't like it. But other people on the mailing list do like it. So your post is meaningless and useless.
If you actually have problems with Go's packaging, and care about it enough to write as much as you have, why didn't you simply point out the flaws?
> Because there are already dozens of people who did that already?
Do you really expect people to scour a newsgroup to find the meaning of your vague and unsubstantiated claims?
Someone could similarly say "Scala is an unmitigated failure of a language. If you want to know why, just track down its detractors on the Internet. There are dozens." Would you be impressed by that?
