11–20 of 402 posts
It speaks to the lack of expressiveness in golang that you can't make sorting less egregiously verbose without adding a performance penalty.
My impression is that Go is a language that was cobbled together to simplify the coding of some specific applications, such as simple servers. It lacks any kind of purity, is not the best choice for any specific task, but is just good enough for some (many?) tasks. And poor type safety! Frankly, I can't help being disappointed by how bland this language is, and I have zero interest in using it. Maybe because I like c…
Personally I've had a lot of fun using it, but prior to starting with it I'd mostly done Java and Node, so that may have something to do with it.
My impression is that Go is a language that was cobbled together to simplify the coding of some specific applications, such as simple servers. It lacks any kind of purity, is not the best choice for any specific task, but is just good enough for some (many?) tasks. And poor type safety! Frankly, I can't help being disappointed by how bland this language is, and I have zero interest in using it. Maybe because I like c…
90% type safety (probably even more) is more than no type safety. It's not a holy grail that all programming must strive for.
I've recently started programming in Go and I am having a blast. Plus, I am making my systems faster and simpler with Go. I love concurrency in Go. I love the concept of Goroutines, the simple and intuitive use of Select. Channels still present a few mysteries here and there... But I'll get it at some point.
But the n#1 thing for me in Go is: It's written in Go. It's refreshing to drill into the language details, I feel like I have learned so much from seeing the Go source code (and having it readily available with a Ctrl+click in VS Code).
Maybe it's because I don't have the "depth" of some of the HN users, but Go feels great to me.
My impression is that Go is a language that was cobbled together to simplify the coding of some specific applications, such as simple servers. It lacks any kind of purity, is not the best choice for any specific task, but is just good enough for some (many?) tasks. And poor type safety! Frankly, I can't help being disappointed by how bland this language is, and I have zero interest in using it. Maybe because I like c…
> And no type safety! 90% type safety (probably even more) is more than no type safety. It's not a holy grail that all programming must strive for.
I don't share some of the opinions I see in the comments here. I've recently started programming in Go and I am having a blast. Plus, I am making my systems faster and simpler with Go. I love concurrency in Go. I love the concept of Goroutines, the simple and intuitive use of Select. Channels still present a few mysteries here and there... But I'll get it at some point. But the n#1 thing for me in Go is: It's written…
Awful to try to read on mobile. Regular page anywhere?
My impression is that Go is a language that was cobbled together to simplify the coding of some specific applications, such as simple servers. It lacks any kind of purity, is not the best choice for any specific task, but is just good enough for some (many?) tasks. And poor type safety! Frankly, I can't help being disappointed by how bland this language is, and I have zero interest in using it. Maybe because I like c…
I was glad to find they made it much easier to define custom sorts for slices. But! Why on earth does what should really be syntactic sugar make sorting nontrivially slower? It speaks to the lack of expressiveness in golang that you can't make sorting less egregiously verbose without adding a performance penalty.
They probably use run time reflections, not a compile time syntactic sugar a.k.a. generics. As Go doesn't have those, so anything like that would require a compiler hack and nobody likes hacks.
The best summary I read recently is that go isn't a bad language, nor is it a particularly good one. What fascinates me is the way the Golang community have concretised that essential middle-of-the-roadness as the language's prime virtue. That, of course, has long been Java's prime virtue as well. (see Blub Paradox) By putting "we're okay with being okay" as your Big Thing you're clearly pitching for that vast bulk o…
> you're clearly pitching for that vast bulk of mid-quality developers that make up the huge middle chunk of corporate devs
That was actually something Google aimed for with Go, and I don't see what is shameful about it. It's a simple language on purpose. It is meant to be easily learned by any developer, and similarly Go code is meant to be easily read.
Also, what sets Go apart for me, in addition to this simplicity, is the tooling and documentation. I think people mistakenly yearn for languages that are exciting to use or offer interesting abstractions. This stuff is fun for the individual developer but costs an organization in the long run.
Go is bland on purpose. Notice how between versions most of the headline updates are internal improvements (GC, tooling, general performance)