I won’t @ them but limiting expressivity in order to limit cognitive load and keep codebases approachable is a totally legitimate move in language design. I’d even say essential. It’s all about balance, and expressivity _does_ have tradeoffs.https://twitter.com/SeanTAllen/status/1036236006872305665 …
-
-
And in such a world, keeping the formal model simple would have been a mirage, with practical Rust programs segfaulting all over the place. In this world, languages without a formal safety model would easily be able to argue against even *having* a safety model on these grounds
-
You're of course right about the non-linear nature of the tradeoff, but also assuming that Go crossed the breakeven point for the vast majority of the cases it's used for. There's good evidence (including the design of Go 2!) that this isn't quite right.
-
Agreed. I'm just saying it's not a slam dunk. There's plenty of evidence on the "no, actually, it's gone far enough for the intended balance" argument too. (I also think it's interesting that new compiler-supported polymorphic types and/or non-generic tycons aren't on the list.)
-
Yeah, I think it's possible to argue that, but also interesting that it hasn't been sustained for a language that wants to be as general-purpose as Go. Someone might make another go at it, and it'd be interesting again!
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.