I understand he said it. But I can’t transmit voice over HN so I need you to read the transcript I made oof what he said rather then listen to it. I’m actually really confused why you couldn’t figure out this is what I meant. I could make a link and point you to the time like you did, but it’s easier to refer to it with an actual written version. Make sense? I hope so.
> The "brilliant" language he refers to here is C++, which I'm sure you're aware has many of its own downsides.
No. The brilliant language he’s referring to is a hypothetical one he could have created. Instead he created golang because he needed to create a language catered to people with less experience. That is what he is saying. I find it strange that you can literally read what is written and also reference the video and literally not understand what was literally said/written.
Maybe you’re just making up meaning subconsciously to cater to your own biases rather then facing the cold hard truth that pike created go to be not “brilliant”.
> What is it about Go that you have a problem with, specifically?
Oh there’s tons of stuff. One is that errors don’t have stack traces. You create an error that can’t be handled and so it bubbles up the stack until the only way to handle it is with a panic. You see the panic in your logs but now you have no idea where the error came from because no stack trace. You get the trace of the panic but no trace of the error. The whole thing is just poorly thought out.
The reason I emphasize that he said it and didn't write it is because it indicated to me that you weren't aware it was actually a talk he gave and you were just regurgitating a cherry picked quote that's been passed around since he said it.
That further indicated to me that you are not aware of the broader context of what he was saying. He literally spends the first 19 minutes talking about writing something in C++, then says the quote.
It seems it is you who is catering to your own biases by using a few sentences from a 20 minute talk to oversimplify what Pike I'd saying.
The interpretation I am giving is based on the entire talk, not just the quote. I acknowledge that he said Go was created for less experienced devs, but I don't think it that means it is a step backward as you said. It enables so much to be done by the "dumber" demographic, as you so eloquently put it. Go, like any other language, has its limitations. It shouldn't be used for everything, but should be used for the things it is good at (obviously).
> The "brilliant" language he refers to here is C++, which I'm sure you're aware has many of its own downsides.
No. The brilliant language he’s referring to is a hypothetical one he could have created. Instead he created golang because he needed to create a language catered to people with less experience. That is what he is saying. I find it strange that you can literally read what is written and also reference the video and literally not understand what was literally said/written.
Maybe you’re just making up meaning subconsciously to cater to your own biases rather then facing the cold hard truth that pike created go to be not “brilliant”.
> What is it about Go that you have a problem with, specifically?
Oh there’s tons of stuff. One is that errors don’t have stack traces. You create an error that can’t be handled and so it bubbles up the stack until the only way to handle it is with a panic. You see the panic in your logs but now you have no idea where the error came from because no stack trace. You get the trace of the panic but no trace of the error. The whole thing is just poorly thought out.