I get the assomption that with go you will avoid 0.2 programmers and make everyone a 1x programmer. But for me, a 10x programmer can generate complex, well engineered systems with a reasonable structure, not by writing everything in low level, super hard code ? From the level a 10x programmer might operate I'm not sure the programming language would be that important ? Expressivity is nice and some languages are better than others, but from my experience you can write nice artifacts from plain tools?
a 10x programmer can generate complex, well engineered systems with a reasonable structure, not by writing everything in low level, super hard code ?
Yeah maybe, but I'm certainly not at that level.
If a 10x programmer exposes foo() and bar() methods to me, I'll call foo().bar() and not realise I've made a mistake, or that I've violated some invariant that's only in his head, not in the low-level code itself.
Comments
This is starkly opposed to how Go is marketed, especially here on HN.
Go was designed to maximise the number of 'any developers' that could join a project, i.e. 1x developers.
Isn't this exactly what op was saying?
Thank you. I had it backwards.
I get the assomption that with go you will avoid 0.2 programmers and make everyone a 1x programmer. But for me, a 10x programmer can generate complex, well engineered systems with a reasonable structure, not by writing everything in low level, super hard code ? From the level a 10x programmer might operate I'm not sure the programming language would be that important ? Expressivity is nice and some languages are better than others, but from my experience you can write nice artifacts from plain tools?
Yeah maybe, but I'm certainly not at that level.
If a 10x programmer exposes foo() and bar() methods to me, I'll call foo().bar() and not realise I've made a mistake, or that I've violated some invariant that's only in his head, not in the low-level code itself.