I suspect this is more a symptom of “enterprise” design patterns than the language itself. Though I do think the standard library in Java is a bit more verbose than necessary.

Wouldn’t the multiplexer run inside the terminal emulator? I don’t use a multiplexer myself, but I thought it was independent of what emulator you use.

Gotcha. Yeah, I feel similarly.

OOP is classes, and their accompanying language features (primarily inheritance) and design patterns (e.g. factories).

The programming languages you use, and the variety of languages you learn, deeply influence how you think about software design.

Software would be much more reliable (in general) if Erlang had become one of the dominant languages for development.

Go sacrifices too much for superficial simplicity; but I would like to see a language that’s nearly as easy to learn, but has a better type system and fewer footguns.

Unit testing is often overrated. It is not good for discovering or protecting against most bugs.

Build/test/deploy infrastructure is a genuinely hard problem that needs better tooling, particularly for testability.

I think TypeScript has a pretty good type system, and it’s not too hard to learn. Adding sum types (i.e. enums or tagged unions) to Go would be a huge improvement without making it much harder to learn. I also think that requiring nullability to be annotated (like for primitives in C#, but for everything) would be a good feature for a simple type system. (Of course that idea isn’t compatible with Go for various reasons.)

I also think that even before “proper” generics were added, Go should have provided the ability to represent and interact with “a slice (or map) of some type” in some way other than just interface{}. This would have needed dedicated syntax, but since slice and map are the only container types and already have special syntax, I don’t think it would have been that bad.

They allude to this later, acknowledging that it’s sort of a cross between unit and bottom.

It’s not possible to instantiate or assign, which is more like a never type than a unit; and it is not possible to define new types with the same properties, which is also more like bottom than unit. But you’re right that it’s not actually a true never type since it can’t represent function divergence.

I think the truth is just that Java’s type system isn’t very mathematically disciplined.

The post has been edited; it looks like someone on reddit made essentially the same point. You’re right of course that void isn’t a true type in Java, but the post now also discusses Void, which I suppose just shows how void infects the type system despite not being a type.

What do you mean, “breaking”? This isn’t a new encoding scheme, it’s an informational page showing ASCII encoding.