> It might not be as elitist as rust or clojure but if collaboration is important for your project I'd rather have simple
I'm not a rust fanboy, but I wonder why people have the assumption that programming should _not_ be elitist. Where did we get the idea that programming should not be a skilled trade, but rather something the everyman can do?
> without foot guns rather then amazing with dragons all over.
Ironically, Rust and Clojure have less "footguns" if we're talking about concurrency and parallelism.
It’s a good aspiration to eliminate needless complexity from a language so people can spend their cognitive resources (be they great or few) on solving real problems. If you can lower the barrier such that a layman can do it, then a genius specialist can do that much more.
The problems don't go away. If the language refuses to handle them and refuses extensibility, every end user now needs to handle those problems without standard tools.
This hasn’t been my experience. I’ve been involved in the language and community for nearly a decade and I’ve never seen an incident where the grievances against the language weren’t seriously overblown. The most credible one has been dependency management. There’s still plenty of room for improvement of course, but the idea that Go’s flaws make it anything short of one of the most productive languages is generally nonsense.
Also, go is an elitist language as well, in its own way. Its creators and many of the first proponets were big Unix/C/Bell Labs names. Quite opinionated people.
I'm not a rust fanboy, but I wonder why people have the assumption that programming should _not_ be elitist. Where did we get the idea that programming should not be a skilled trade, but rather something the everyman can do?
> without foot guns rather then amazing with dragons all over.
Ironically, Rust and Clojure have less "footguns" if we're talking about concurrency and parallelism.