My entire contention with new languages is that they delude the knowledge base, and intellectually factor the engineers. Is it a hash table? Is it a dictionary? no no no, it must be a MAP. OHHHHH, that's what you mean? We haven't gotten to anything complicated, yet we still aren't on the same page.

It is this weirdly held belief that somehow it MUST be a syntax problem when trying to EXPRESS algorithms. Here's my dose of reality for you:

If you CAN'T express A (any, all, something!) solution using EXISTING LANGUAGES and TOOLS, %100 guarantee the problem is simply your lack of knowledge and experience in Computer Science.

There is a time and a place for language changes and updates, that I firmly agree with.

Google with GoLang, in particular is a perfect example of ANOTHER language where everybody has to relearn the BASICS.

How do you write hello? How do you define variables? How do you implement common patterns like Factories/Singletons/Adapters? Oh, a new HTTP server, don't forget to build ANOTHER one of those? etc, etc, etc. The list goes on.

Where is GoLang 2.0? GENERICS. Here goes another batch of professionals with NO EXPERIENCE in generics discovering for the first time (like the 50th) that abstraction can be expressed in more generic/templated forms.

So goes the case for Rust, Julia, or any new programming language. They all claim to follow standards (...while openly flaunting unique standards...), but there is no standard. Every translation the human brain has to make at the syntax level is just ONE more level of complexity to something where LESS complexity is valued highest.

Weirdest mentality in the world.

A Data Wizard

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store