Just because a language focuses on simplicity does not automatically make it bad. People use Go to solve complex issues, so it makes total sense none of that working memory should be occupied with understanding language features, even if they're as simple as generics.
A more extreme way to write Go is "space shuttle style" Code, as used in the Kubernetes Volume Controller, a radically different approach to "I want all my complex features that I can use to shoot myself in the foot".
You might be able to handle a firearm, but we have plenty of injuries and deaths through mishandled firearms every year, don't think you're exempt from that (or if you insist, at least do not talk down the need for safety).
I assume it is hyperbolic. The OP clearly has issue with the Go language. The rant contains the common misunderstandings about it (no generics, must be bad), etc. Go has survived 11 years without generics (they might be coming) and underpins some of the most popular software out there. Clearly, it has something going for it. Pike and Google understand generics, but generics have pitfalls. So when Pike and co decided to design a new language, they took lessons from the years of history, rather than repeating the same mistakes. Go is a language that is easy for people to learn, but more importantly, get right. It is just as powerful as virtually any other language out there, so caters to the advanced programmer as well. Those attributes are something not a lot of languages can legitimately claim. And people, for some reason, get really upset about it. shrugs. I say kudos to someone for building a language that isn't a research project that crammed every possible "cool" concept in. I like learning languages and would rather appreciate them for what they are than whether they have X thing. If X thing is big enough to be a problem, then I don't use the language, simple. No need to get all worked up about it and post rants on unrelated articles.
As someone else noted, I am taking a swing at Go's lack of generics.
More to the point, I am criticizing the reason for that. Designing a simple language is fine. I like simple languages a lot. Go was designed not because simple languages are good for some jobs but because Google decided their engineers aren't up to using more powerful tools.
I don't know Go. I've only written about 200 lines of it. I don't pretend to know whether or not it's any good. What I do know is that the reasoning behind it is bizarre to me.
/Google decided their engineers aren't up to using more powerful tools./
I think you fundamentally misunderstand the reason for using Go. It's NOT about whether a developer is/isn't capable of understanding how to write code with a particular set of tools.
Instead, it's almost entirely about making that code simple to read and understand at a later date. Complex/'powerful' language tools complicate reading, which slows down later fixes and small modifications at best, and at worst leads to additional bugs in later iterations over the code. Thus, the core belief in Go's design is that 'powerful' languages are optimizing for entirely the wrong things.
From my perspective, this is a good change of focus. I want simple tools that I don't have to worry about. We have finite attention, so we should actively try to reduce cognitive load whenever possible, as it frees up attention for other things. For example, it's a much better use of my time to think about bayesian optimization than whether an array pointer is being safely handled... If I need to worry less about the latter, I have more time to think about the former.
> More to the point, I am criticizing the reason for that.
Go's lack of generics is not due to ideological reasons. The designers are not particularly against them and are open to adding them given a good proposal. They always said that generics may well be added at some point.
You need to relax. Yes his comment is speculation, does that mean he is necessarily wrong? He is giving his first-thought analysis of what might be the problem at Signal. Is that such a crime?
The recent release of the details of Signal stack requirements is rather damning. I actually agree based on it that they are likely doing things badly.
I don't though think that Musk had that information when he made his off the cuff pronouncement. I think he just says whatever he feels like and everyone automatically assumes he is correct because of his success/riches. This is my main objection to him. Respecting someones opinion and assuming they are correct because they are rich is just plain disgusting. Society should be better than this.
I also think that someone in his position should not be mocking a company that provides a free service. It just makes him look like an ass imo. In turn it makes me think that those who upvote that shit here on Hacker News are sheep.
If he gave some reasonable explanation or details, then fine. If he used reasonable capacity planning and some sort of evidence to demonstrate that such an accusation is reasonable, fine. He didn't.
This is what happened: Musk thinks to himself "Signal is better than Whatsapp, I should recommend Signal and people will think I'm awesome." His recommendation of Signal was merely the statement of an attention whore. Signal was obviously better for so long. Anyone worth anything in security / tech knew this a long time ago.
After Musk recommended Signal, it blew up in his face because they couldn't handle the capacity increase immediately due to his recommendation. This makes Musk look bad, because he just recommended them. So what does Musk do? Musk denounces and mocks Signal.
This is why Musk is an asshole and deserves to be mocked and attacked. It is all a fucking publicity stunt to him. He doesn't give a shit about security or helping out Signal. All he cares about is acting like king of the world. Fuck him.
I certainly do see what you're saying. I think at least 40-60% of what Musk says at any given time is pure sci-fi speculation or hype around an upcoming product/company. I also find it obnoxious how his fanboys and fangirls mindlessly clap at any word he says, like some sort of Pavlovian chimps. On this we cannot agree more.
However, whatever his motivation, I think the guy is genuinely intelligent. It's tough to not admit this. His mere intuition is fair match for the experience of many seasoned engineers (if what we read about him is true). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do think he donated to the Signal foundation. At the very least he has put money where his mouth is.
