> Switching to a simpler language like C lets you focus on the problem solving again, not solving language puzzles
Or, read another way, "with simple language X I have to reimplement the things that language Y comes with"
I guess it's all a matter of what level of abstraction one likes to work with. For me, re-implementing a "Set" implementation (eg: go) yet again doesn't count as "productive" just because I'm typing typing typing more more more.
This my point; at least in the past, `go` did not provide a Set implementation.
Some people assert that they feel "productive" because of all the typing they need to do to implement it, AGAIN. My stance is that HAVING to do that decreases productivity. I'm mis-quoting, but something Knuth said is to think of it not as "lines written" but "lines spent".
I feel that `go`'s recent acquiescence on templates/generics is a bigger version of this, and related to the Stockholm Syndrome I mentioned earlier; this caused much anguish in some, and to me it felt like because having that feature would case people NOT GETTING to type in their bespoke, artisinal implementations of all that stuff that's been solved a million times over. To me that's just baffling.
Or, read another way, "with simple language X I have to reimplement the things that language Y comes with"
I guess it's all a matter of what level of abstraction one likes to work with. For me, re-implementing a "Set" implementation (eg: go) yet again doesn't count as "productive" just because I'm typing typing typing more more more.