I don't understand why you would create a statically typed language but not actually take advantage of types, instead typing everything with generic types like string. Why make the user pay for complexity in types but not actually deliver their promise? This is the problem with C and Go doesn't really solve it either
I Want Off Mr. Golang's Wild Ride
51–60 of 508 posts
Re: I Want Off Mr. Golang's Wild Ride
#52I felt the same way after writing a large (100kloc) project in Go, this is back when go was 1.0 or so as well. It started off well enough, but eventually started to fail in helping me create the software I needed to make.
No matter what, after 100k loc, you'll encounter language quirks that irritates you. It's a matter of how complicated it was to find and what the work around is.
Re: I Want Off Mr. Golang's Wild Ride
#53Can we just stop with the "Rust vs Go" shit?
If you want me to take a critique of Go seriously these days, pick another language to compare it to. Any other language.
And yeah, I'm aware that 5 years ago there were a ton of "Go vs Java" articles. I didn't think much of them then, either.
Re: I Want Off Mr. Golang's Wild Ride
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Functional is ideal, but these languages are harder to learn and not intuitive (like rust). Outside of idealism we need a language that can be procedural simply because that is what people are use to. Something like Go with ADTs.
Ocaml and SML are not the Haskell dream world. They allow imperative code, side effects, and mutation. The difference is that they have sane defaults (eg, immutable until you specifically ask for mutations) and an actually sounds type system (no null exceptions, exhaustive pattern matching, good generics, etc) SML in particular was designed to be easy to learn and implement and succeeds rather well on both counts. It…
Interesting. What is your opinion is preventing SML from filling the vacuum in terms of adoption? Is it just marketing?
Re: I Want Off Mr. Golang's Wild Ride
#55Go is my favorite language but I do agree that Windows support has always felt like an afterthought.
Re: I Want Off Mr. Golang's Wild Ride
#56The author spent a lot of time dwelling on Window's filesystems, at which point many of the readers got bored and started commenting. There are actually a couple of excellent points in here, the majority of which relate to Go's tendency to just be silently completely wrong in its behaviors from time to time, and is absolutely packed with hidden gotchas.
The problem is... and a lot of people aren't going to like this, including the original author... a lot of those particular gotchas are there for a reason. The author overestimates how much of them are intrinsic to the language, in my opinion. This is a cross-platform file interface, and we've had those for years. What we tend to discover is that if you do write something precisely correct on each platform, you lose…
> This is a cross-platform file interface, and we've had those for years. What we tend to discover is that if you do write something precisely correct on each platform, you lose a lot of value in the cross-platform bit.
This is similar to the pros/cons for using a mobile framework like React Native, where you get a lot of productivity in cross platform design but you lose some of the precision compared to developing for each platform natively.
If you need that precision, then you need to use something native. It is simply a tradeoff of business needs. Do you need cross platform productivity or per-platform precision? If you need precision, then reconsider your engineering tools.
Re: I Want Off Mr. Golang's Wild Ride
#57The author spent a lot of time dwelling on Window's filesystems, at which point many of the readers got bored and started commenting. There are actually a couple of excellent points in here, the majority of which relate to Go's tendency to just be silently completely wrong in its behaviors from time to time, and is absolutely packed with hidden gotchas.
The problem is... and a lot of people aren't going to like this, including the original author... a lot of those particular gotchas are there for a reason. The author overestimates how much of them are intrinsic to the language, in my opinion. This is a cross-platform file interface, and we've had those for years. What we tend to discover is that if you do write something precisely correct on each platform, you lose…
I don't think the windows vs everything else is the main point of this article. I think it is just an example of a design trend, and even within that section of the article the author mentions unix specific design flaws of go file handling.
Re: I Want Off Mr. Golang's Wild Ride
#58I think this post summarizes to,
- I don't like the file-related packages
- What's up with this random 7 star library having a lot of transitive dependencies
- Rust for life
- In summation, Go is the worst
Re: I Want Off Mr. Golang's Wild Ride
#592/3rds about platform FS incompat, last third about only a couple of things like time comparisons being monotonic now (does more good than bad IMO). I suspect if issues of such importance are enough to make you want off the "wild ride", you will not find a ride suitable.
He presented them as typical examples, not as issues of such importance as to independently make him off the "wild ride."
He also compared them to alternatives that he found favorable, which specifically addresses the idea that alternatives are worse.
It could be reasonable to disagree with the content of his argument, but it didn't have either of these structural problems.
Re: I Want Off Mr. Golang's Wild Ride
#60"With a Go function, if you ignore the returned error, you still get the result - most probably a null pointer."
Well you should handle the error in the first place.