What an infuriating thread. I guess I'm not the kind of person Go is made for, but the fact that everyone in the thread was so close-minded about what might be helpful about map, filter, and reduce was frankly absurd.
I especially enjoyed the demonstration of map would look in Go code, complete with a useless anonymous function:
> bar = map(foo, func(e T) { return f(e) })
And this guy who doesn't seem to understand the concept of function pointers:
> You seem to equate the function f with a single character, which it's not. The user must write it's implementation, which you have omitted for your own benefit.
What you're forgetting is that adding one useful feature is a slippery slope towards adding many other useful features, and thereby no longer having a mediocre language.
First class functions is a language feature. I definitely understand omitting it from a language. But go has that already. The issue is that without good higher order functions in the core libs, it's quite a waste!
I especially enjoyed the demonstration of map would look in Go code, complete with a useless anonymous function:
> bar = map(foo, func(e T) { return f(e) })
And this guy who doesn't seem to understand the concept of function pointers:
> You seem to equate the function f with a single character, which it's not. The user must write it's implementation, which you have omitted for your own benefit.