Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

While I agree with most of your comment, I think you've misinterpreted the intent here:

> Until I list the ones it doesn't. Or are they not "real"?

My reading of the original post is asserting that there is a specific set of problems that Go is designed to solve well, and that it's avoided providing functionality not related to those specific problems. The entire comparison is to a "shop-made jig", which explicitly solves only a specific subset of all problems you might encounter in woodworking, but is not at all a general-purpose tool.

This definitely fits with my experience with Go. If you want to build something that only needs concrete data types, channels, HTTP, and a database connection, and want to bang it out fast and move on, Go works well in this niche, because that's precisely the set of "real problems" that it was designed to solve.

I do not consider Go a general-purpose programming language. I would not use Go for ambitious large-scale projects. If I were putting together an engineering team to write a small network service, with junior developers, Go would be at the top of my list.



I admit I may have taken the "solves real problems" too literally and did not read the rest to understand it.


These kinds of nuances can be a bit subtle; I hope I managed to come across as polite correction instead of attack. :)




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: