Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Toward Go 2

blog.golang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 670 posts

Re: Toward Go 2

#241

Post by spyspy »

nightski wrote: post #203
didibus wrote: post #177

I get that everyone would love to have a functional language that's eager by default with optional lazy constructs, great polymorphism, statically typed with inference, generics, great concurrency story, an efficient GC, that compiles quickly to self contained binaries with simple and effective tooling which takes only seconds to setup while giving you perfomance that equals java and can rival C, with a low memory fo…

Nearly every item on your list is available with OCaml.

A large standard library, too?

Re: Toward Go 2

#242

Post by weberc2 »

slantedview wrote: post #204
callesgg wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my specific case it was the fact that i could not have one insert function or one update function. I would need one for each and every struct(table). These days there is a tool that can generate all those struct methods: https://github.com/vattle/sqlboiler So from the ORM perspective we (as the community) have worked around it.

The idea that we don't need generics because we can generate code is kind of ridiculous, and certainly doesn't pass the simplicity smell test.

He wasn't making that argument...

Re: Toward Go 2

#243

Post by khana »

dvt wrote: post #80
munificent wrote: post #25

> I can't answer a design question like whether to support > generic methods, which is to say methods that are > parameterized separately from the receiver. I work on the Dart language. Dart was initially designed with generic classes but not generic methods. Even at the time, some people on the team felt Dart should have had both. We proceeded that way for several years. It was annoying, but tolerable because of Dar…

I edited a book on Dart a few years ago. It's a shame the language hasn't gotten much traction outside of Google, as I enjoyed learning and using it.

Indeed. And what about GWT? Was Dart the GWT nixer projet? GWT lost momentum one innocuous day (years ago) faster than a speeding bullet.

Re: Toward Go 2

#244

Post by trishume »

ziotom78 wrote: post #212
nightski wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nearly every item on your list is available with OCaml.

Apart from "great concurrency story", because of the well known problems with the GC. This might be a huge shortcoming for a number of people.

Multicore OCaml is in the works and is looking amazing, but is indeed a ways away. They're taking their time and doing it properly so things are fast and safe.

Re: Toward Go 2

#245

Post by masklinn »

I_am_tiberius wrote: post #135
masklinn wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My goal would have been to have one generic type that can store the cell types text and number which I can store in an array. FWIW generics wouldn't help you with that, "sum types" would. A sum type is a souped-up enum which can store associated data alongside the "enum tag", so you can have e.g. enum Foo { Bar(String), Baz(u8, u32), Qux, } and at runtime you ask which "value" is in your enum: match foo { Bar(s) =>…

Thanks for that information. I had thought enums can only be used as named types. Good to know they can hold data as well. I had though of that struct as well (ok, not in that professional way with types as constants and iota:-)) but found it a bit annoying that I have to store a type myself although the type itself should already have the type information somewhere itself - consequently that information is stored re…

> I had thought enums can only be used as named types. Good to know they can hold data as well.

That depends on the language, and enums being sum types also depends on the language.

* Rust and Swift enums are sum types (they can hold data and every variant can hold different stuff), there is also a ton of (mostly functional) languages with sum types not called enum: Haskell, F#, OCaml, … there are also languages which replicate them via other structures (sealed classes in Kotlin, case classes in Scala).

* java enums (a bare "enum" is the C one) can hold data but every variant must hold data of the same type so you'd need up/down casts

* C++, C# and C enums can't hold data

Go does not have enums.

Re: Toward Go 2

#246

Post by jimjimjim »

Here be Opinions:

I hate generics. also, I hate exceptions.

Too many people are wanting "magic" in their software. All some people want is to write the "Happy Path" through their code to get some Glory.

If it's your pet project to control your toilet with tweets then that's fine. But if it's for a program that will run 24/7 without human intervention then the code had better be plain, filled with the Unhappy Paths and boring.

Better one hour writing "if err" than two hours looking at logs at ohshit.30am.

Re: Toward Go 2

#247

Post by Xeoncross »

notheguyouthink wrote: post #224
Xeoncross wrote: post #173

Generics have never stopped me from building in Go... But without them I often do my prototyping in python, javascript, or php. Working with batch processing I'm often changing my maps to lists or hashes multiple times during discovery. Go makes me rewrite all my code each time I change the variable type.

It's weird, I see these complaints so often and I just.. don't.. get it. I'm not sure what I do differently, but I'm just so used to Go's method of non-generic that I don't run into frustration at all. The only time I even notice it is if I have to write a method like `AcceptInt(), AcceptString(), AcceptBool()` and etc. I enjoy generics in Rust, I'm just not sure what I'm doing differently in Go that causes me to not…

It's possible your data (and types) are short lived.

When I'm doing text processing for example, I pass the same strings/dicts/hashes through dozens of functions for cleaning, sorting, organising, benchmarking, comparing, etc..

It's not just in->save->out CRUD work.

Re: Toward Go 2

#248

Post by scribu »

elliotmr wrote: post #233

I must say that whenever there is a discussion about the merits of the Go programming language, it really feels hostile in the discussion thread. It seems that people are seriously angry that others even consider using the language. It is sort of painful reading through the responses which implicitly declare that anybody who enjoys programming with Go is clueless. It also really makes me wonder if I am living in some…

I think the negative attitude comes more from frustration than from anything else.

> I am a professional programmer working at a large company and I am pretty sure that 95% of my colleagues (myself included, as difficult as it is for me to admit) have no idea what a reified generic is.

I didn't know what it was called either until I saw them mentioned here, but now that I know about it, I get why it would be useful. Before that, I kind of assumed all languages with generics would also allow you to access the type information at runtime.

> I have run into some problems where being able to define custom generic containers would be nice, but I don't feel like that has seriously hindered my ability to deliver safe, functional, and maintainable software.

I don't mean any disrespect, but this is a very good example of the Blub Paradox: http://wiki.c2.com/?BlubParadox

Re: Toward Go 2

#249

Post by piinbinary »

Tyr42 wrote: post #198
didibus wrote: post #177

I get that everyone would love to have a functional language that's eager by default with optional lazy constructs, great polymorphism, statically typed with inference, generics, great concurrency story, an efficient GC, that compiles quickly to self contained binaries with simple and effective tooling which takes only seconds to setup while giving you perfomance that equals java and can rival C, with a low memory fo…

Sounds like you want Eager Haskell.

Idris is basically an eager-evaluated Haskell, with other niceties on top (dependent types if you want them; fixed String type)

Re: Toward Go 2

#250

Post by neurotrace »

elliotmr wrote: post #233

I must say that whenever there is a discussion about the merits of the Go programming language, it really feels hostile in the discussion thread. It seems that people are seriously angry that others even consider using the language. It is sort of painful reading through the responses which implicitly declare that anybody who enjoys programming with Go is clueless. It also really makes me wonder if I am living in some…

I don't think anyone has been arguing against it's ease of use nor the ease of readability. Most people seem to be against it's ergonomics and intentional lack of features.
Post reply on HN