Ask me how I know they're retarded.

how do you know they are retarded?

@netikras

"rust has a flat learning curve"

"rust clicked with me as well, *much easier than go*."

I have to assume they've never used go, rust (or both), or else they're legitimately disabled.

@Wisecrack How so?

With some of the unintuitive/deceiving shit in Go, Rust may actually be easier to learn

Some people think in Lisp.

@M1sf3t It's supposed to but the designer is an elitist imbecile and thus it's not that great of a language

@desmondanimus Vscode is a bad IDE anyways

@desmondanimus I actually like VScode too, mostly for web developement. But it's more of a text editor than an IDE. I've never used much of Rust but I heard the IntelliJ plugin is good

@12bitfloat
> Go is unintuitive/deceiving.
How so?
> Ad hominem one of the creators.

Nice pivot.
I am actually interested in how you find Go unintuitive, though.

@vlads

exactly vlad.

@vlads It has pointers, bad error handling, no proper dependency management (maybe they added it now, without requiring vendoring), stupid imports with github urls (that's not dependency management wtaf), no generics (but only for you), stupid case sensitive names determining visibility, weird problems with nil interfaces and a bunch of other shit. In general it tries way to hard to be simple (because Robby boy thinks you are an idiot) while in reality just having weird syntax and being way to verbose. And that's just the stuff I can remember on the spot

@vlads I almost forgot that it has duck typing, maybe the worst thing anyone has ever done to a type system

@12bitfloat

I disagree with a lot of what you wrote and it pisses me off.

Good rant.

@12bitfloat Interfaces being nil-able - I'll give you that as being unintuitive.

Everything else is just design decisions you disagree with:
* github imports are very intuitive (not good, just intuitive)
* pointers act more like C++ references syntactically, so there's no bugs through pointer arithmetic - Java's primitives get passed by value and objects by reference is less intuitive to me
* no generics - they're going to be added (how is "no generics" a point for it being unintuitive anyhow?)
* case determining visibility, duck typing - simple, intuitive rules. Maybe you don't like them. I do.
* errors - simple, intuitive, just too verbose

@12bitfloat
Though I understand now what you mean. If you come from Java, or whatever, with a mentality of "Oh, there's this new language! Seems pretty cool, let's see what it can do. Oh wait, why is visibility detirmined by case? Oh wait, why can interfaces be nil-able? Oh wait, why are errors handled like this? This is weird and not at all the intuitive thing I was promised. "

The thing to understand is that, unlike the creators of Rust, Pike, Ken Thompson (I'd like to see you piss on him for a change) and that other guy weren't C++ guys who thought "let's change this for the better", but C guys who thought "we ought to switch to a modern language, but we don't like any so let's make our own".

So expecting Go to be "like C++, but..." (like all modern languages) is not going to get you anywhere.

@vlads May 'unintuitive' was the wrong word to use. But I do think that you should always teach people how to do things properly. So all the 'ease' of Go doesn't actually get you anything in the long run. Maybe go really is intuitive, but it comes at a high cost. That's what I don't like about it

@12bitfloat
What do you mean by "doing things properly"?