I think go is failed, compare to rust.
1. not memory safe on multi-thread
2. no generic support
3. error handle is full of pain compare to rust's Result<T>, Option<T> and try!
4. gc can't be disable
5. no RAII support, defer can be forgot
light-weight thread (spawn) and channel (thread safe FIFO) already exist in rust that make golang more meanless.
If you think still any advantage of go please tell me.
Go is stable, wheras Rust is not. Go also targets other use cases than Rust, and so the two are not directly comparable.
1. Rust cannot guarantee multi-threaded memory safety in all cases. Care, as in Go, must still be taken.
2. I agree with you here, I think Go would be better with generics. But apparently, most people don't have a problem with this.
3. Rust and Go's error handling is based on the same principle: force the user to deal with errors, instead of ignoring them. While Go's way of handling things can be a little more verbose, in principle I don't see the big difference.
4. Alot of people will argue that this is a good thing. Using a GC by default makes certain things easier, like writing datastructures (especially immutable ones) without reaching for 'unsafe' code. Having a GC also means you don't have to mind memory fragmentation, as you do with a manually malloc/free based allocation.
5. RAII is great, but loses some of it's use in GC based language. Defer is, IMHO, a much better option than the other solutions I've seen in other GC languages (Javas try-with-resources and C#s using)
Just because you can do the same thing in language X, doesn't make language Y obsolete.
Advantage of Go, for me, is less verbose code (implicit interfaces for the win) and a fantastic, stable and huge standard library. I also like the strict compiler, and that the language has a GC by default, makes certain things easier, and for most tasks I don't need the predictability that you get with manual memory management.
While I do generally agree with what you've written, I do want to take issue with point (1). Rust is actually intended to guarantee multi-threaded memory safety in safe code. Period. If you can get it to behave otherwise, it's a bug in Rust.
True. What I really meant is that safe code can interact with unsafe code, and thus cannot guarantee everything working correctly. Of course, this is bug with unsafe code, my bad.
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. But "go is failed" is a little strong, don't you think? Wouldn't it be more accurate, and less ornery, to say that you personally don't like Go?
For my part, I like Go because it offers a great, if nascent, alternative to PHP. That's the gist of it, anyway.
