"""Idioms are not static. Please stop using that as a strawman to tear down. Idioms rot. If they are not what the community currently uses, they are not idiomatic."""
I'm not annoyed by idioms because they don't ever change -- but because while they exist in a certain form, they inhibit experimenting with different approaches.
Or to be more presize, I'm not annoyed by idioms themselves (as I also wrote above), as individual practices. I'm annoyed by people insisting on them, and criticizing everything diverting (unidiomatic) as something that's bad.
Nothing is static, except change. But for a specific period of time (which can be like aeons in the software industry) idioms are for all intends and purposes static.
E.g Java EE land, from say, 2000-ish to 2007. The idioms were fixed and agreed upon, and most people and groups, from Apache Struts to Java engineers and IBM played by them, but they neither helped the community "communicate via code" nor helped "make programs understandable".
Instead, they hindered both communication and understanding. Almost everybody agrees now that the adopted idioms at the time were bad, and inhibited progress and even slowed down projects.
It's not even like "it was good for it's time, but we eventually came up with something better". We always had the option to do the better thing (it doesn't take unique new research to not use a 20-levels deep hierarchy or to not think GoF patterns should be applied everywhere). And since we moved on, everybody seems to agree it wasn't "good for the time" either.
Dude, just be a rebel and go off and program go however you like. All of your railing is pointless. Things change over time at different rates for different reasons. Clearly you personally feel insulted because you like to think of yourself as being an outside-the-box type of thinker who comes up with new clever ways of doing things. Good for you. Keep it up and don't forget to teach us along the way, but remember that simply railing against a communities standard approach is rather pointless. With your better way, lead on :)
I see you all the time in these go threads, by the way. You would better spend your time forgetting about go and doing something else since you so clearly detest it for not having generics (obviously less convenient than a functional language, but clearly not required to do programming).
I'm not annoyed by idioms because they don't ever change -- but because while they exist in a certain form, they inhibit experimenting with different approaches.
Or to be more presize, I'm not annoyed by idioms themselves (as I also wrote above), as individual practices. I'm annoyed by people insisting on them, and criticizing everything diverting (unidiomatic) as something that's bad.
Nothing is static, except change. But for a specific period of time (which can be like aeons in the software industry) idioms are for all intends and purposes static.
E.g Java EE land, from say, 2000-ish to 2007. The idioms were fixed and agreed upon, and most people and groups, from Apache Struts to Java engineers and IBM played by them, but they neither helped the community "communicate via code" nor helped "make programs understandable".
Instead, they hindered both communication and understanding. Almost everybody agrees now that the adopted idioms at the time were bad, and inhibited progress and even slowed down projects.
It's not even like "it was good for it's time, but we eventually came up with something better". We always had the option to do the better thing (it doesn't take unique new research to not use a 20-levels deep hierarchy or to not think GoF patterns should be applied everywhere). And since we moved on, everybody seems to agree it wasn't "good for the time" either.