> I think you should compare to languages that have a similar purpose / area of usage. In my experience that is C++ and mostly Java.
The languages I listed first were rust and scala, which serve very similar purposes to c++ and java. In fact, rust is closer to c++ (no GC, more direct memory control) and scala is closer to java (runs on JVM) than go is to either.
> Over time I got used to it. When I write it I use a snippet.
Which is my point. You have to get used to things like this, which probably adds about as much cognitive load as having something in the language to reduce this noise (although I think this is an known problem in go and may be improved in a future version).
> I am sure you know that there is no inheritance in Go
Fine.
Replace "inheritance" with struct embedding and/or interface hierarchies, and you can get a similar effect. My point is you can have overly abstracted designs in either language.
> The languages I listed first were rust and scala, which serve very similar purposes to c++ and java. In fact, rust is closer to c++ (no GC, more direct memory control) and scala is closer to java (runs on JVM) than go is to either.
The overlap in purpose and usage for Go and Java is gigantic. Also I don't understand why it matters whether Scala is closer to Java or whether Rust is closer to C++. We were comparing Go and X right?
This whole argument tree is a bit nonsensical.. I compared Go projects to Java and C++ projects which I have worked on. All of the mentioned languages are very common in companies these days and are used for similar topics. Why bring other languages in to this?
> Which is my point. You have to get used to things like this, which probably adds about as much cognitive load as having something in the language to reduce this noise (although I think this is an known problem in go and may be improved in a future version).
You always have to get used to some quirks in any language out there. It adds a few lines writing the code but reading it is way easier IMHO and not cognitive load. Opinions may of course vary on this.
> Fine. Replace "inheritance" with struct embedding and/or interface hierarchies, and you can get a similar effect. My point is you can have overly abstracted designs in either language.
As I already wrote, embedding is rarely used and was not a problem ever in my experience and yes interface spamming is a problem.
However Java e.g. has these abstraction complexities already baked into the standard library and encourages the overuse of abstractions IMO.
The languages I listed first were rust and scala, which serve very similar purposes to c++ and java. In fact, rust is closer to c++ (no GC, more direct memory control) and scala is closer to java (runs on JVM) than go is to either.
> Over time I got used to it. When I write it I use a snippet.
Which is my point. You have to get used to things like this, which probably adds about as much cognitive load as having something in the language to reduce this noise (although I think this is an known problem in go and may be improved in a future version).
> I am sure you know that there is no inheritance in Go
Fine. Replace "inheritance" with struct embedding and/or interface hierarchies, and you can get a similar effect. My point is you can have overly abstracted designs in either language.