>Go isn’t Java. It’s easy to bring our biases in from other languages, but when you use a language you should be buying into the philosophy, conventions, and style of the language as much as the rules of the language
Only if those make sense. "The philosophy, conventions, and style of the language" could very well be BS.
Take Java for example: the mid-2000s J2EE code with the endless abstractions, XML everywhere, patterns galore, etc, was accepted and used as the default Java "idiomatic style", but it was understood later to be cargo cult BS.
Similarly, Java didn't have Generics either pre 1.5 iirc. One could say like you now, writing without generics is part of the "philosophy, conventions, and style of the language".
But it wasn't. It was just a missing feature. Now that Java added it, nobody feels it was better before, and nobody feels like they're sacrificing some part of the "style of the language" for using it.
Only if those make sense. "The philosophy, conventions, and style of the language" could very well be BS.
Take Java for example: the mid-2000s J2EE code with the endless abstractions, XML everywhere, patterns galore, etc, was accepted and used as the default Java "idiomatic style", but it was understood later to be cargo cult BS.
Similarly, Java didn't have Generics either pre 1.5 iirc. One could say like you now, writing without generics is part of the "philosophy, conventions, and style of the language".
But it wasn't. It was just a missing feature. Now that Java added it, nobody feels it was better before, and nobody feels like they're sacrificing some part of the "style of the language" for using it.