That would be a tooling language then, like bash or python or so.
Thanks for bringing this up! Have you seen the horrors that K8s had to do to get Go to work well? They ended up building a strongly typed system on top of it, making the code look absolutely abhorrant and near unreadable (and slowing it down).
I’ve yet to see any redeeming quality of Go, it’s not faster than C, it’s not more safe than C, and even C has Go-like threading (libmill/libdill) nowadays that also outperforms Go (due to not needing to GC). Overall I don’t see the point of having such a hard to use, poorly designed language when better things like OCaml (safety, ease-of-use, speed), Python (ease of use, libraries), or Rust (speed, safety, not as easy to use but still easier than, say, haskell, plus no better threading system out currently) exist.
Except those abstractions help make your code readable, and it is not hard to build zero-cost abstractions (like C++ or Rust or most of OCaml), so if it makes your code shorter, easier to read, more maintainable, more reuseable, then why would you ever not want them?!
In ever test I’ve done so far Go executables are significantly larger than even OCaml’s (which also includes a GC and included pruned runtime), though C/C++/Rust are significantly smaller.
What higher level features is that? It’s barely only now getting a dependency system (where C/C++ has things like Hunter for years now and Rust has had Cargo since near the beginning). It’s interface system is barely glorified C-like void pointers. It’s so bad at code that you often even have to generate code externally (woo back to the 1980’s code generators instead of safe and efficient macro systems!). Really though, I’m not sure what of any feature it has could be considered higher level, even it’s threading is old-style CSP code.
C generates such wonderfully strong opinions! ^.^
