1. 18
  1.  

  2. 6

    I know I shouldn’t care. But I’m still alternately sad and angry when go claims credit for things that OCaml did better, a decade earlier.

    1. 8

      It says in the article, “Go will certainly not be remembered as an academic language, it breaks only the minimum of new ground, preferring instead to consolidate on a corpus of proven ideas.”

      It doesn’t sound like they’re claiming that at all.

      1. 6

        when go claims credit for things

        [citation needed]

        1. 3

          i love ocaml, but the tooling can be pretty painful, especially when it comes to go’s strongest point, which is compiling your app into a single binary, and doing it for multiple platforms from a single place.

          1. 0

            I guess then I shouldn’t suggest reading http://features.slashdot.org/story/15/11/18/1748247/interviews-alan-donovan-and-brian-kernighan-answer-your-questions.

            That’s what I would call painful to watch.