That aside, if we mean a focus on what is practical, it seems unlikely to be practical to make a human do the work a compiler could do. You can do a lot better than Go these days. You could do a lot better than Go 10 years ago.
There are things I like about Go. Binaries and cheap threading come to mind. But to ignore the work PL has done to make entire classes of problems history is a perpetuating the “Null value billion dollar mistake”. Golang’s type system is near useless and emblematic of the sort of type system that dyn-langers wanted to escape to begin with.
Leaning on “pragmatism” probably isn’t the angle you want to take given it’s (anti) intellectual pedigree: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism
That aside, if we mean a focus on what is practical, it seems unlikely to be practical to make a human do the work a compiler could do. You can do a lot better than Go these days. You could do a lot better than Go 10 years ago.
There are things I like about Go. Binaries and cheap threading come to mind. But to ignore the work PL has done to make entire classes of problems history is a perpetuating the “Null value billion dollar mistake”. Golang’s type system is near useless and emblematic of the sort of type system that dyn-langers wanted to escape to begin with.
score 3 · canonical