I sort of found it ugly, before getting used to the syntax. A lot of the feeling of ugliness of a code comes from the unfamiliarity of the syntax.
I had the same problem with Rust, especially with the lifetime syntax; all these ' in random places just made a feeling of unevenness. But when your brain starts to have a deeper understanding on the construct, it processes things differently and the structure of the code comes at you in a clear way (when the code itself is not some crap by itself, of course). Beautiful code is clear code.
It's nowhere near as "elegant" as most scripting languages, and not nearly most of the purely functional languages, but I think it's better than /$C(++)?^/.
Comments
I like what Go offers, but is there anybody else who find code written in Go ugly?
I sort of found it ugly, before getting used to the syntax. A lot of the feeling of ugliness of a code comes from the unfamiliarity of the syntax.
I had the same problem with Rust, especially with the lifetime syntax; all these ' in random places just made a feeling of unevenness. But when your brain starts to have a deeper understanding on the construct, it processes things differently and the structure of the code comes at you in a clear way (when the code itself is not some crap by itself, of course). Beautiful code is clear code.
It's nowhere near as "elegant" as most scripting languages, and not nearly most of the purely functional languages, but I think it's better than /$C(++)?^/.
I am under the same impression. Can someone explain why the syntax is the way it is?
Don't want to be that guy but it looks like inbred child between c, php and pascal.
Yeah, only Lisp is beautiful. ;)
Yeah I think golang can get ugly. I think assembly is prettier http://www.tyrannus.com/asmexample.html