You're right. A particular (innovation) step is sometimes like evolution
blindly trying options, but (only) on the long run the improvements are
clearly there.
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017, 20:47 Henrik Johansson wrote:
> No but generally I would say that _everything_ is better today than lets
> say fif
No but generally I would say that _everything_ is better today than lets
say fifty years ago.
Maybe every step wasn't better than the one immediately before but many
steps later it surely is.
If there was a way to easily test language features as just pulling in the
golango.org/x libs then this co
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017, 19:32 Michael Jones wrote:
> I don't think it's about language. I got downvotes immediately for my
> comments over the weekend.
> https://github.com/golang/go/issues/19623
>
> Whatever the circumstances, any proposal will often have its detractors as
> the most immediate and
I don't think it's about language. I got downvotes immediately for my
comments over the weekend.
https://github.com/golang/go/issues/19623
Whatever the circumstances, any proposal will often have its detractors as
the most immediate and vocal responders. Support may come later.
Agree that openmin
If you guys allow me, I have a little concern about the Go 2 process.
I perceived some harsh debates when someone propose a new idea. That is not
the proper attitude. Please consider that the core team explicitly asked
for new ideas.
As a comunity we are used to deny the value of some novel propo
