> Although we expected C++ programmers to see Go as an alternative, instead most Go programmers come from languages like Python and Ruby.
This absolutely fascinates me. I'm primarily a C++ programmer and have been for decades. When I explored Go, it never occurred to me that it was meant to be a C++ alternative at all.
> The answer can be summarized like this: Do you think less is more, or less is less?
Both, and neither. Less is not automatically more. It can, in fact, be less. On the other hand, too much gunks up the works and reduces utility -- in that case, less is, in fact, more. To a point.
That said, I do think C++ crossed into the "too much" category years ago.
> Although we expected C++ programmers to see Go as an alternative, instead most Go programmers come from languages like Python and Ruby.
This absolutely fascinates me. I'm primarily a C++ programmer and have been for decades. When I explored Go, it never occurred to me that it was meant to be a C++ alternative at all.
> The answer can be summarized like this: Do you think less is more, or less is less?
Both, and neither. Less is not automatically more. It can, in fact, be less. On the other hand, too much gunks up the works and reduces utility -- in that case, less is, in fact, more. To a point.
That said, I do think C++ crossed into the "too much" category years ago.