<story><title>400 days of Go</title><url>http://www.philipotoole.com/400-days-of-go/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>arihant</author><text>I love Go, 90% of my company&amp;#x27;s codebase is in Go. But I can&amp;#x27;t ignore the Kool-Aid in this article.&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t see why people have perception of IDE being a bad thing. In past 15 years or so, I have never been in a situation where I was on a system where some IDE was not supported, and I wanted to use it.&lt;p&gt;They are everywhere, just like vim. That&amp;#x27;s like mocking the Gmail cause it needs a browser, while praising mutt cause you can be lost in Jurassic World with an Apple II which cannot run Chrome.&lt;p&gt;The build times of Go 1.5 are not that fast. That point is not &lt;i&gt;that&lt;/i&gt; valid. I also don&amp;#x27;t see much point in have competition of build times among languages that compile to binary. Rust, Go, C are all fast enough.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m sure he has good points below (I see testing as one), but he started out bashing Java, after which I genuinely did not want to read the article. I&amp;#x27;m not a Java fan, but I find the language extremely non-assuming, very less opinionated and quite useful. If Go one day has half a million repos of libraries, given it&amp;#x27;s composability features, it will have names just as fugly as some Java classes. Java&amp;#x27;s standard libraries are actually very clean.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>mseebach</author><text>There&amp;#x27;s nothing wrong with an IDE &lt;i&gt;per se&lt;/i&gt; -- but it&amp;#x27;s a smell when a language is so verbose that it effectively requires a machine to help you write it, which is definitely the case for Java.&lt;p&gt;It&amp;#x27;s just a smell, it&amp;#x27;s not disqualifying, because, as you correctly state, rare are the times when you can&amp;#x27;t just run the IDE. But I think it&amp;#x27;s a perfectly fair point that the language you can write effective in vi is -- all other things being equal -- better than the language that requires an IDE.</text></comment>
<story><title>400 days of Go</title><url>http://www.philipotoole.com/400-days-of-go/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>arihant</author><text>I love Go, 90% of my company&amp;#x27;s codebase is in Go. But I can&amp;#x27;t ignore the Kool-Aid in this article.&lt;p&gt;I don&amp;#x27;t see why people have perception of IDE being a bad thing. In past 15 years or so, I have never been in a situation where I was on a system where some IDE was not supported, and I wanted to use it.&lt;p&gt;They are everywhere, just like vim. That&amp;#x27;s like mocking the Gmail cause it needs a browser, while praising mutt cause you can be lost in Jurassic World with an Apple II which cannot run Chrome.&lt;p&gt;The build times of Go 1.5 are not that fast. That point is not &lt;i&gt;that&lt;/i&gt; valid. I also don&amp;#x27;t see much point in have competition of build times among languages that compile to binary. Rust, Go, C are all fast enough.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m sure he has good points below (I see testing as one), but he started out bashing Java, after which I genuinely did not want to read the article. I&amp;#x27;m not a Java fan, but I find the language extremely non-assuming, very less opinionated and quite useful. If Go one day has half a million repos of libraries, given it&amp;#x27;s composability features, it will have names just as fugly as some Java classes. Java&amp;#x27;s standard libraries are actually very clean.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>realusername</author><text>For the build times, I would say it&amp;#x27;s more that C++ is really slow and the others are indeed quite okay. If you have done some work in Qt or with a library using Boost, you just hate any slow build after that.</text></comment>