> it's my understanding Go exists as a simple language on which to build larger programs, not as a "one true way" language with everything included.
I agree. However, there is a big difference between libraries and frameworks. I believe frameworks are an antipattern in any language, not just Go, but Go's emphasis on simplicity makes frameworks for it especially grating to me.
Rather than poorly summarize, I'll link two of my favorite articles criticizing frameworks; one is humorous [1] and the other is more serious [2].
Thanks for the links. I misunderstood your displeasure with frameworks as an issue with Go, it makes more sense that you (and many others) see frameworks as bad. The arguments against them are pretty compelling, but I can't fault someone for building one :P
I agree. However, there is a big difference between libraries and frameworks. I believe frameworks are an antipattern in any language, not just Go, but Go's emphasis on simplicity makes frameworks for it especially grating to me.
Rather than poorly summarize, I'll link two of my favorite articles criticizing frameworks; one is humorous [1] and the other is more serious [2].
[1] http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/?joel.3.219431.12
[2] http://tomasp.net/blog/2015/library-frameworks/