Golang is BAD for SMART PEOPLE

Summary

In a critical exploration of programming languages, the speaker contrasts Go with TypeScript and JavaScript, advocating for Go's simplicity and strong concurrency features. They argue that Go is designed for accessibility, enabling developers of varying skill levels to create efficient code. While acknowledging that Go may lack some advanced object-oriented programming features, the speaker believes its straightforward approach is beneficial, especially for tackling complex problems. Ultimately, they express a preference for Go's pragmatic style over the complexities often found in more 'clever' code, highlighting its effectiveness in real-world applications.

Takeaways

• 😀 Go is designed to be a simple language, making it accessible for both novice and experienced programmers.
• 🤔 The speaker critiques Go's procedural nature, suggesting it lacks modern object-oriented programming features.
• 🔄 Concurrency is a strong point in Go, with excellent support through channels, which the speaker finds valuable.
• 💡 The speaker emphasizes the importance of simple, readable code, contrasting it with the complexities found in TypeScript and React.
• ⚙️ Clever programming techniques can lead to difficult-to-maintain code, making straightforward solutions preferable.
• 🤯 Request deduplication is highlighted as a complex problem that requires careful algorithm design, illustrating the challenges of more sophisticated coding tasks.
• 👍 The speaker appreciates Go's ability to enable quick productivity, allowing teams to get up to speed efficiently.
• 💬 Despite frustrations with TypeScript, the speaker acknowledges their familiarity with it and still holds a negative view of the language.
• 🛠️ The use of structs and interfaces in Go is critiqued as insufficient for providing encapsulation compared to traditional OOP.
• 🚀 Ultimately, the speaker believes that Go is one of the best programming languages available due to its effectiveness in getting developers to contribute to projects quickly.

Q & A

What is the speaker's overall opinion about the Go programming language?

The speaker views Go positively, emphasizing its simplicity and effectiveness for a wide range of programmers, making it accessible for those who may not have extensive coding experience.

How does the speaker compare Go to other programming languages?

The speaker contrasts Go with TypeScript and JavaScript, criticizing the latter two for their complexity and expressing a preference for Go's straightforwardness and ease of use.

What specific features of Go does the speaker appreciate?

The speaker particularly appreciates Go's concurrency features, such as channels, which allow for effective handling of multi-threaded programming.

What criticism does the speaker have regarding Go's support for object-oriented programming?

The speaker criticizes Go for lacking robust object-oriented programming features, suggesting that this limits the ability to encapsulate details and abstract complexities effectively.

What does the speaker say about the dangers of 'clever' coding practices?

The speaker warns that clever coding can lead to complex refactoring issues, making maintenance challenging and suggesting that simpler coding practices are often more effective.

Can you give an example of a complex coding problem mentioned in the transcript?

The speaker mentions request deduplication as a complex problem that requires clever algorithms, highlighting the difficulty of managing overlapping requests for data.

What is the speaker's stance on the learning curve associated with Go?

The speaker feels that Go has a manageable learning curve, asserting that even with minimal experience, one could become proficient in it quickly.

What frustrations does the speaker express about TypeScript?

The speaker expresses strong frustration with TypeScript, describing it as inadequate and stating that it complicates programming unnecessarily compared to simpler languages like Go.

Why does the speaker believe Go is a valuable language for teams?

The speaker believes Go's accessibility allows teams to onboard new programmers quickly and contribute to projects effectively, which is essential for enhancing products rapidly.

What conclusion does the speaker reach about the relationship between language complexity and programmer capability?

The speaker concludes that a simple language like Go can produce successful outcomes for both inexperienced and experienced programmers, suggesting that complexity does not necessarily correlate with better results.