The portion of that material which is requisite is obviously a strict subset of the entirety of the material. But, for one to flippantly say "I've read it" without even establishing what "it" is, seems a bit dismissive and duplicitous to me. Regardless it is obvious to anyone who is knowledgeable that Rob Pike has not read what most who are in the know would consider "requisite".
Also, if you take a look at the thread I posted, his attitude and approach re: map, filter & reduce doesn't come across as the most academic or well thought out.
Rob didn't really say anything about map, filter, and reduce in that thread. His comments should be taken as being in addition to the earlier comments by Ian Lance Taylor, another member of the Go team.
You should address the gaps in your own knowledge before criticising others. For instance, you're obviously unaware that Rob designed and implemented a whole language based around map/reduce/filter style operations: http://static.googleusercontent.com/external_content/untrust...
I think his obvious implication is that Go doesn't need map, filter and reduce because (if I may summarize) "line feed is just a single character".
That's just really poor (and silly) reasoning honestly. A 12-yr old could look deeper. For instance:
-. Is 'writing' code all that matters?
-. Aren't there in fact 10s or 100s or 1000s more readers to code than writers (including the original author also as a reader)?
-. Do readers like to scroll between various blocks of logic and divine signal from noise by teaching their brain to ignore boilerplate?
-. And what if the brain at first sees something as boilerplate but only upon further examination finds a subtle difference in the pattern for this one rare instance?
-. And what if that happens when the programmer is investigating a long-standing bug that has just resulted in a great loss of human life (and will continue to do so)?
Rob, myself, and others have written tomes on this, on Hacker News, golang-nuts, and elsewhere. If you're trying to have an argument with Rob (he's not reading this, btw) over some pithy statement he made in February, you're wasting your time.
You've written tomes on how wasting vertical space and multiplying syntactic noise is a good idea? Even if so: ideas are not measured by the volume of noise you write in support of them.
You've written tomes on how wasting vertical space and multiplying syntactic noise is a good idea? Even if so: ideas are not measured by the volume of noise you write in support of them.
At the risk of prolonging this insufferable "conversation": my point is that it has been discussed to death, and you're being down voted because nobody is interested in discussing it with you, or even hearing you discuss it.
Also, if you take a look at the thread I posted, his attitude and approach re: map, filter & reduce doesn't come across as the most academic or well thought out.