Many thanks for your rant although most surprised you actually gave up on such trivial matters especially when they are far from insurmountable?
Not insurmountable, annoying enough to make me wonder why I should use a language so cryptic when there are better alternatives. Like Pascal or Ada... or even C. And me praising or suggesting C would be like my suggesting someone use bootcrap.
But if it came down to w3.css and bootcrap, bootcrap wins.
I gather from the "just trying to install the blasted thing" comment that you failed to create an online version. I have vague memories there are at least four difference methods to create a Golang web site depending on ease of installation and performance.
Not sure what's so different that makes installing it to use it any different local or delivering online content. Certainly saw nothing in my experience to say that "online version" is even a THING differentiated from any other method of installation.
without the need to install the C Framework.
WTF is a "C Framework"? Do you mean the COMPILER. C doesn't need "frameworks" or any dependency bullshit, much less GCC should already be installed on 99%+ of web servers. You compile a native application, tell apache to call it via httpd.conf or .htaccess, and be done with it. All you need is a library for fastcgi interfacing, and that's barely 30 lines of code if done the "easy" way.
Same could be said of FPC. Ada... not so much.
NOT that I'd use EITHER language for websites. PHP is ubiquitous, it's fast enough, and it lacks much (but not all) of the BS that makes me dislike Go.
Regarding their fmt() function, if you really, really wanted to a myFormat() function could have been created which called their fmt() function.
So add a pointless bloated wrapper to compensate for the language or its libraries being needlessly and painfully cryptic? /FAIL/ at language design. Just one of the reasons I dislike PHP's idiotic "wrapper functions" for mysqli that exist just to mollycoddle the people who can't handle something as ridiculously simple as objects.But to be fair, I'm one of those programmers who wants to find out who thought naming a function strstr was a good idea, and deliver a backhanded slap. That or introduce them to a rather large lady friend of mine who can explain what snusnu is. C is not my favorite programming language, and for something to be MORE cryptic than C is just astoundingly stupid.High level languages should not be more cryptic than assembler mnemonics!
Both the directory structure and Git usage is optional and recommended no doubt due to their experience. I must admit most of their documentation is above my head along with the forum users.
Which is where it violates one of the basic rules of good programming and programming language creation. If you can't document it, don't write it... and if you HAVE to document it with more than a paragraph, you probably wrote it wrong.
The Reverse string function was typical of how the Boffins can optimise their functions. Why not just call the function, pass the parameter and appreciate not having to write the function yourself. Incidentally the only reverse string function usage that crossed my mind was to alphabetically sort emails by their provider and user name - any other uses?
My problem wasn't with what it does, or how they did it, or why they did it. My problem was with the simple fact it's a painfully cryptic mess filled with single letter variables and references, with endless pointless cryptic symbology that makes it ten times harder to figure out what the blazes it is even doing!
Other complaints about the syntax being too cryptic was not really valid. A couple of their simple online examples managed to successfully compile.
What does it compiling have to do with it being so cryptic it's hard for even PROGRAMMERS to figure out what it's doing. The compiler has dick-all to do with why cryptic is bad. By that logic and reasoning we should all be programming assembly language in binary.
Anyway what I like about Golang compilation fails with redundant variables, function calls, etc
Why I like Ada... But that isn't sufficient reason for me to use it when the code is so painfully and aggravatingly hard to understand.
... for someone who used to hand-assemble RCA 1802 and Z80 Machine language for a living, and has code running on satellites in orbit.
It reeks of "how pointlessly and aggravatingly complex can we make the syntax" L33tism. Again, it's one dead brain cell away from languages like brainf*** where code like this:
Is the norm.