> Go is like a rusty old hammer that will just work and there are not too many ways to hold it.
And there are non-rusty hammers that also "just work" and don't exactly introduce an insurmountable dilemma when it comes to holding them, as well as having pretty basic variations to the hammer head that actually make it easier to "get stuff done" (such as a claw or a peen).
But the people using the rusty hammer like to pretend as though anything other than the most basic form of a hammer (double flat head on a handle) is just "fancy feelings" driven musing about "beauty or correctness".
This is the type of comment I'm talking about. You clearly have strong feelings about Go, and have shared a metaphor to express your distaste for it, but I have learned nothing about why you feel this way. Would you mind sharing? What is this "insurmountable dilemma" or the "basic variations to the hammer head" you're referencing?
As its written, your comment reads more like language warfare than discussion
> You clearly have strong feelings about Go, and have shared a metaphor to express your distaste for it
I was extending an analogy that was already presented. The context is, funnily enough, right above my comment if you'd like to read it.
And I don't have strong feelings about Go; its existence is ultimately irrelevant to me as a dev. I do have strong feelings about a certain cadre of Go enthusiasts, however.
> What is this "insurmountable dilemma"
It doesn't exist. That's the point. Said enthusiasts like to pretend as if everybody else is absolutely drowning in a dilemma of which way to achieve X in their language of choice, while Go is for "getting stuff done"™, because obviously no-one ever did anything apart from bikeshedding prior to Go's appearance.
> or the "basic variations to the hammer head"
Any number of programming language features/concepts which some Go enthusiasts like to decry as unbearably fanciful complexity. If it's not in Go then it must be Bad regardless of being objectively superior to whatever Go offers as a replacement. Parametric polymorphism is perhaps the most infamous of these, and even with the Go team moving forward with a specification for generics there are still people that complain about the language losing its "simplicity".
> As its written, your comment reads more like language warfare than discussion
Of course. And relegating people's preferences in their work tools to "musing about beauty and correctness" (presented as caring less about productivity) is "discussion" not language warfare.
And there are non-rusty hammers that also "just work" and don't exactly introduce an insurmountable dilemma when it comes to holding them, as well as having pretty basic variations to the hammer head that actually make it easier to "get stuff done" (such as a claw or a peen).
But the people using the rusty hammer like to pretend as though anything other than the most basic form of a hammer (double flat head on a handle) is just "fancy feelings" driven musing about "beauty or correctness".