<p>I do because c got most things right but it doesn't scale for the web. Also I find that the use of for loops rather than map or fold leads to less boiler plate and more portable code. The conncurency support is great and having Google to back us is amazing!</p>
<hr/>**评论：**<br/><br/>Bromlife: <pre><p>Doesn't scale for the web? What does that even mean? One should not say "web scale" unless one is being ironic.</p>
<p>I use Go because I find it pleasurable to code in & after struggling with both Python's & Node's frustratingly bad implementations of concurrency, goroutines was a breath of fresh air.</p></pre>aagee: <pre><p>Can you expand on your struggle with Python, and how you found Go to be better?</p>
<p>I am picking up Go (and I come from a C/C++/C#/Python background) - and finding it hard to see why it is a "good" language. Some of the syntax makes me cringe. Maybe I need to keep at it for a while.</p></pre>Simpfally: <pre><p>Which syntax makes you cringe?</p></pre>afrobee: <pre><p>Like everything? Also not generics ofcourse</p></pre>aagee: <pre><p>Well, for one thing, the way switch is overloaded of use as normal switch and a type switch. And in the type switch, the cases are actually types, and the value being switched on is the value (not type).</p>
<pre><code>switch v := anything.(type) {
case string:
fmt.Println(v)
case int32, int64:
fmt.Println(v)
case SomeCustomType:
fmt.Println(v)
default:
fmt.Println("unknown")
}
</code></pre>
<p>Then there is the part:</p>
<pre><code>anything.(type)
--and--
anything.(someType)
</code></pre>
<p>These seem to be two different things, but use the same syntax. And what is the intuition behind this syntax anyways? There is already someType(anything). What does the "." in "anything.(someType)" signify (in that the "." is used for member access)?</p>
<p>I have other things. But let me hear your views on the above.</p></pre>Simpfally: <pre><p>Well x.(T) is a <a href="https://golang.org/ref/spec#Type_assertions" rel="nofollow">type assertion</a> and (T)x is a <a href="https://golang.org/ref/spec#Conversions" rel="nofollow">conversion</a></p>
<p>I'm not an expert so I can't tell you <em>why</em> they did it that way.</p>
<p>And if you don't like overloading, there's also channel switches.</p>
<p>I feel like there's not a lot of keywords or particular syntax in general, so maybe x.(T) isn't intuitive but it's easy to use and remember so yeah.</p></pre>PM_ME_YOUR_VIMRC: <pre><p>But go is web scale isn't it? </p></pre>Bromlife: <pre><p>Please explain to me what "web scale" means.</p></pre>Simpfally: <pre><p>trolls</p></pre>PM_ME_YOUR_VIMRC: <pre><p>I was told on hn that golang is webscale maybe I got trolled there.</p></pre>Simpfally: <pre><p><a href="/r/gobashing" rel="nofollow">/r/gobashing</a> is leaking :)</p></pre>PM_ME_YOUR_VIMRC: <pre><p>What that sub is disgusting go 4 lyfe</p></pre>PM_ME_YOUR_VIMRC: <pre><p>Concurrent and a mogodb driver</p></pre>mrcactus28: <pre><blockquote>
<p>c got most things right</p>
</blockquote>
<p>wut</p></pre>PM_ME_YOUR_VIMRC: <pre><p>Its simple</p></pre>gianhut: <pre><p>I thought Simplicity<sup>TM</sup> NoGenerics<sup>TM</sup> was trademarked by Rob Pike and the Golang team though?</p></pre>
