Hates Google

>using external macro preprocessor is a crime

Go has generics u dummies

ch := make(chan string) // GENERIC CHANNEL
m := make(map[string]bool) // GENERIC
slc := make([]*Fag, 1) // GENERIC

>Canadian Aboriginal syllabics

Attached: 1523295804311.png (277x315, 129K)

you forgot append() and delete()

>Canadian Aboriginal syllabics
>invented by a white man

I like go. Its comfy. Also I don't get why some are butt hurt about generics. Get over it faggots.

Generics are one of the most key features of a static type system for being as to write expressive and reusable code. Even Java has generics. You can't write map/reduce/filter in Go.

I think we should wait for Commander Pike to introduce generics to Go for the gothers to start shilling them as the breakthrough of the century.

Go vs erlang, which is better for a backend that does message passing?

Go has stw gc and shared memory.
Erlang has none of that bullshit + built in redundancy.

maybe I'm a brainlet programmer, but I prefer a simpler languages over more featureful ones. Though I'm sure they will have this implemented for you when go 2.0 is released.

Kotlin is just a better Java which is already a better Go

>Generics are one of the most key features of a static type system
C doesn't have them and yet it's quite possible the most successful statically typed language ever created.

>WE DID IT, WE INVENTED [feature invented by lisp]
>WE HAVE [feature present and done better in Fortran]
>[paradigm supported by any modern high level lang] IS THE FUTURE, CAST YOUR SHIT ASIDE BRAINLETS
they never learn. It's like with IDEfags and [feature Emacs/Vim had ages ago]

Attached: 1513815117491.png (567x589, 211K)

>maybe I'm a brainlet programmer
If you think generics are complicated you quite possibly are.

Don't confuse success/adoption with quality. I don't think anyone is under the impression that C's type system is particularly good.

to clarify this is not unique to gophers, but to most language shills. Also, I would remind Lispers and editor Wizards that modesty is a virtue.

Attached: 1528586455828.jpg (1440x2960, 795K)

Jow Forums does NOT like Go

Rob Pike can go fuck himself. Add generics and a functioning dependency management system and I'll use it.

Go has a worse cult following than Jabbascript.
>hurr i don't even miss generics!
>>you never used them in the first place did you? asshat
>hurr this is a systems language!!! so fast!!!!
>>NO ONE would use a GC language for systems

>Go

Attached: pike_on_go.png (675x513, 74K)

Let's be fair. It is perfectly okay to make a language explicitly not for great (or even good) programmers, but for... decent programmers. Serviceable ones. For large programs it's realistic. Not even Google could afford wasting the time of hundreds of high-profile programmers for one project.

A pragmatic mind is what will bring you to the top.
Sure google is a shady company but they need tools to build their advanced orwellian master plan.
Go is a powerful tool if used correctly and there is no reason not to use it if it fits your needs, even personal ones.

Jow Forums is too brilliant for go. Go is a baby language made for babies at google. We need hi tech state of the art pure functional languages with dependent type systems for all the high quality experimental fizzbuzz implementations we produce.

>hates niggers
>designs go for them
what was rob pike thinking?

>not for great (or even good) programmers, but for... decent programmers. Serviceable ones.
It's an outrage to suggest that "programmer" does not imply "genius." We're all in this profession to prove that we're geniuses and to get rewarded for being geniuses. Why else would we put up with the crappy working conditions? So when this guy comes along and designs an entire language on the idea that idiots can be programmers, of course we're offended. It undermines our identity. We put all this work into proving we're superior beings. Now we have to prove it all over again? Horseshit.

have fun integrating the external macro preprocessor into your tooling

Then what's an example of a Jow Forums approved language other than C/C++?

Scratch

What we ought to do is work directly with machine code, or at least assembly, but that isn't portable. For portability purposes C/C++ is an acceptable compromise.

Haskell and Rust.

All sarcasm aside, is there a good reason to be bothered?

Attached: 1318355208895.jpg (300x283, 71K)

lol gopher memes are the best

Attached: DGai-uNUAAAKZc_.jpg:large.jpg (1572x800, 198K)

This is a h o t take, but I see where you're coming from.

>go generate

Except Go is about having less features, not more. It's like Bauhaus vs AbstractBeanFactoryInterface

>If you think generics are complicated you quite possibly are.
But generics are complicated, on the implementation side (but you wouldn't know that, as a brainlet who has never implemented a compiler/interpreter).

The only reason Go doesn't have generics is because no one has figured out a good way to implement them yet.

Attached: rust.jpg (381x499, 57K)

In other words, Go is better than Java, C, C++, and Python, which are all horrible languages.

By brilliant, Rob probably means things like Scheme or Smalltalk, which 99% of Jow Forums know nothing about except memes.

The generic problem would be easily solved by exposing a lot lower level interfaces, like interfaces for operator overloading of base operators. An interface for total order, an interface for arithmetic operators, an interface for building new container types. They don't necessarily need the C++ style shit that would increase compile times out the ass.

>Like the creators of sitcoms or junk food or package tours, Java’s designers were consciously designing a product for people not as smart as them.
– Paul Graham
Does this quote also apply to Go?

Ah, the usual gopherlet excuse, like clockwork. "We're too incompetent to give you a feature literally every single other modern language is able to provide." The implementation side is completely irrelevant to this discussion, why would a user give a single fuck about that? But hey, since you are apparently not a brainlet and a genius in compiler design, maybe you can explain to me why the implementations of generics in the 5000 languages that have them all suck and are not good enough for the brilliant language that is Go. (Go ahead, I'm genuinely interested.)

this->

>Don't confuse success/adoption with quality.
pretty sure you are the one doing this. Go doesn't need generics to be a good language to make good software...

shit bait

I heard patches are welcome. submit your own, user, you'll probably become famous after that

Yes. 100% of Jow Forums is not as smart as Rob Pike or Ken Thompson, though, so I'm not sure how it's relevant.

I got hooked on the language before disliking Google... I spent a lot of time getting good, and I'm too stubborn to switch to something else.

What is a better option, Rust? C#?

go 2.0 will have generics

They're still looking at proposals and the devs are still raising the same objections they had before. They haven't committed to adding them at all.

>what are job opportunities?
>t. haskell/rust dev

>using any programming language that includes a Code of Conduct

Attached: 1529625274672.jpg (360x360, 49K)

i need more

>Using a programming language that have a code of conduct that is less reasonable than the fucking furnet one

Go doesn't need generics.
If you want to know why, read the source of the standard libraries or just the compiler source.

>What is a better option, Rust? C#?
A better option for what?
Go is mostly just a google branding of pike and co.s former language developments at bell labs.
It's great for server software and tools.
My guess is that if it gets a nice immediate mode GUI framework, it will basically completely replace java for anyone who isn't bound to legacy systems.
The python devs like it. The ruby and php dudes like it. This means it will gain adoption.
The go-team keeps it minimal and doesn't add shit just for the sake of it (even with 100s of autists raging about it every day), but rather tries to think things through.
And it's pretty enjoyable to program in.
I don't know what more I could wish for (except for a proper C replacement which will hopefully be jai for me).

I don't like google either, but someone has to pay researchers, and nowadays it's mostly companies.
Most people won't start hating on haskell, even though Simon Peyton Jones is employed by MS.

Attached: goroyper.png (496x403, 9K)

>maybe you can explain to me why the implementations of generics in the 5000 languages that have them all suck

Like O(2^n) exponential compile times in C++ from extensive template use? Does that qualify as sucky implementation?

>thinking code of conducts actually do anything

What's the problem with C?

Reserved to autistic homos.

LOL

>most programmers at Google are new grads
>implying
>implying Google interviews aren’t hard as fuck

t. 23 year old boomer with an IQ of 93

I had to look that up, what the hell kinda shit is that, next they're going to make you sign an agreement to be someones cockholster.

Attached: 1528651152128.jpg (1200x1286, 351K)

Yeah I'd like a little more integration than that. Of course you can't even imagine what I'm talking about because you don't know of any better.

>Rust? C#?
Yes these are supior languages, but if you are just an opportunists who doesn't plan for the long term your goals might differ.

>t. brainlet

>So when this guy comes along and designs an entire language on the idea that idiots can be programmers,
Kinda rude to call Eich "this guy"

>Literally denies competent developers because the interviewers are soibois reading from a checklist.

>Detention centers are concentration camps now
You have to be a mouth-breathing retard to believe this