← Back to context Comment by skydhash 16 hours ago Isn’t that Go? 3 comments skydhash Reply yunwal 16 hours ago Go and “simple tooling” don’t really belong in the same sentence. Powerful tooling, sure, but simple? g947o 14 hours ago Would be helpful if you elaborate which part is not simple.Coming from C++ and JavaScript, there aren't many languages that can claim to have "simpler" tooling than Go. shepherdjerred 13 hours ago The tools aren’t bad any more, but you do need a few liners to write safe code. But that’s the case for most languages
yunwal 16 hours ago Go and “simple tooling” don’t really belong in the same sentence. Powerful tooling, sure, but simple? g947o 14 hours ago Would be helpful if you elaborate which part is not simple.Coming from C++ and JavaScript, there aren't many languages that can claim to have "simpler" tooling than Go. shepherdjerred 13 hours ago The tools aren’t bad any more, but you do need a few liners to write safe code. But that’s the case for most languages
g947o 14 hours ago Would be helpful if you elaborate which part is not simple.Coming from C++ and JavaScript, there aren't many languages that can claim to have "simpler" tooling than Go. shepherdjerred 13 hours ago The tools aren’t bad any more, but you do need a few liners to write safe code. But that’s the case for most languages
shepherdjerred 13 hours ago The tools aren’t bad any more, but you do need a few liners to write safe code. But that’s the case for most languages
Go and “simple tooling” don’t really belong in the same sentence. Powerful tooling, sure, but simple?
Would be helpful if you elaborate which part is not simple.
Coming from C++ and JavaScript, there aren't many languages that can claim to have "simpler" tooling than Go.
The tools aren’t bad any more, but you do need a few liners to write safe code. But that’s the case for most languages