Hacker News Reader

Comment by kaba0 | Hacker News Reader

If your language is too simplistic, essential complexity will just live in your ad hoc program instead, which is objectively worse. Especially that you will realize it later that you are missing some core utils and have to patch it up (e.g. generics in case of go).

There are dynamic languages with zero compile times, but Java builds just as fast for me as Go and it is a much more expressive language than Go, which is a shame.

View on HN

> If your language is too simplistic, essential complexity will just live in your ad hoc program instead, which is objectively worse.

Not from my experience. Go is a breath of fresh air in this over-engineered complex industry.

Go promotes simplicity and speed, and so does V.

Agree to disagree here :)

Not every program is a basic CLI app with 3 network requests, and the only tool we have against complexity is abstractions.

Most of the stuff we use is written in C. Which is even smaller than Go.

You don't need complex langs to write software.

Uh, C is not really small nowadays. ISO C specification is about 200 pages long even without all the library. (It's hard to compare directly, but Go is probably around 50~100 pages long when formatted similarly.) C could have been small enough, but ISO C is not.

Most of the stuff we use was written in C89 and even older versions :)

Also, most of what? Besides OSs, tiny tools, DBs and embedded, C is not used all that much. Where truly high performance is required, the de facto language of choice is C++ (see e.g. browsers) and business applications (which are the most numerous) are definitely not written in C in most cases.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com