I find your response condescending and hostile, actually. The parent was making a basic generalization; he didn't categorically claim that his statement applied to all people.
People de facto speak in the form of opinions, and if we are all to qualify our statements with "...in my opinion" for fear of accidentally making an authorative statement, then HN would become a very unhappy place.
> I find your response condescending and hostile, actually.
I don't follow. The rest of your comment posits an argument for why you think I was wrong. If you're going to accuse me of being condescending and hostile, then I think you at least owe me the courtesy of explaining why.
> People de facto speak in the form of opinions
I agree.
> and if we are all to qualify our statements with "...in my opinion" for fear of accidentally making an authorative statement, then HN would become a very unhappy place.
I did not say we should do that.
> The parent was making a basic generalization; he didn't categorically claim that his statement applied to all people.
In a discussion of design trade offs, it is important to distinguish between technical fact and opinion. In language design in particular, it is too easy to conflate these things. This thread, for example, is full of it. (For and against Go, FWIW.)
You don't consider condescension and hostility to be "wrong"?
To be explicit, then, I think your comment's tone was inappropriate for HN. You're taking a generalization and expressing displeasure in the fact that the generalization seems to have inadvertedly included you, and then blaming the commenter for having done so.
You have to be deliberately obtuse to assume that the parent's statement was intended as absolute fact. It doesn't matter if we're discussing technology, this is a conversation, not a textbook; it's a normal part of discourse to give the other party a little slack and not treat every utterance literally and in absolute terms.
> You don't consider condescension and hostility to be "wrong"?
Huh? I used "wrong" in the sense, "your argument is incorrect," not, "you shouldn't do that," precisely because your comment explained how you disagreed with me (not why you thought I was being a jerk). In that way, "wrong" and condescension/hostility are orthogonal concepts.
> You have to be deliberately obtuse to assume that the parent's statement was intended as absolute fact. It doesn't matter if we're discussing technology, this is a conversation, not a textbook; it's a normal part of discourse to give the other party a little slack and not treat every utterance literally and in absolute terms.
I stand by what I said. I don't know what textbooks have to do this. I'm not asking for rigorous debate here. I'm asking for a modicum of clarity in a type of conversation where clarity is important.
I agree that we should give each other a little slack. But I also think we should encourage clarity where we think it is necessary. I think it is necessary in this context.
> You have to be deliberately obtuse
But thanks for the insult all the same. Do you think that is appropriate for HN?
A snarky comment, but I experienced the same on the golang-nuts mailing list. If you dare to question conventional wisdom be prepared to be shot down rather unceremoniously.
At least by now, they updated their docs a little bit.
I still think the "How to Write Go Code" article, which most beginners will encounter, is absolutely misleading by its advocacy of 'go get' - I cannot envision a universe where 'go get' makes sense. You absolutely have to vendor your dependencies if you want any kind of stability with your project.
> You absolutely have to vendor your dependencies if you want any kind of stability with your project.
I have several open source Go projects and I have been maintaining them for years by just using `go get`. I've never once had a stability problem because of it.
Of course, your point is absolutely correct. But I'm pointing out that `go get` can absolutely be useful in some universes. In fact, it's one of the things I love most of the Go toolchain.
So, umm, can we stop presupposing that everyone else's opinion and experience is just wrong?
My explanation is that there is some kind of positive feedback loop involved:
(1) Go developers/creators think they are really really smart.
(2) Experienced developers see their flaws, stay away from Go, and never participate in the mailing list.
(3) Clueless developers join the mailing list and ask simple/stupid/beginner questions. Go developers can easily answer them, reinforcing their self-assessment in (1).
It's a scary feeling watching their echo chamber ...
My experience interacting with the Go community on golang-nuts was generally pleasant and productive. I haven't experienced or witnessed any hostility, except maybe some hotted debates, but they happen on all programming languages mailing lists. What makes you think the Go community can be hostile?
People de facto speak in the form of opinions, and if we are all to qualify our statements with "...in my opinion" for fear of accidentally making an authorative statement, then HN would become a very unhappy place.