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

Eleven Years of Go

blog.golang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 170 posts

Re: Eleven Years of Go

#161

Post by thegeekpirate »

thegeekpirate wrote: post #115
jhoechtl wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WASM is their weaker part. On the flip-side the WASM takeup is also rather modest so the net loss is not that big. Eventually they might come up with a solution to get their huge WASM files down to bearable size. Sure its because they have to ship the bigger part of their VM with it.

There's no VM in Go—you're probably thinking of the runtime. A "Hello World!" using 1.15.4 on linux/amd64 takes up 1.2MiB of space (731KiB after UPX). Using https://github.com/tinygo-org/tinygo , it drops to 21KiB (unable to be compressed further using UPX), making WASM size a non-issue.

Forgot to mention I was using TinyGo v0.15.0.

Re: Eleven Years of Go

#162

Post by thegeekpirate »

tbrock wrote: post #160
andreygrehov wrote: post #5

If anyone is interested in playing with generics in Go, here you go: https://go2goplay.golang.org/ https://go2goplay.golang.org/p/mUWfsZPHs5h

I love go but im annoyed they didn't choose angle brackets for the syntax. It's illogical to be annoyed at this, i know, but it feels like being different just for the sake of being different.

> Angle brackets require unbounded parser look-ahead or type information in certain situations

https://groups.google.com/g/golang-nuts/c/7t-Q2vt60J8

Re: Eleven Years of Go

#163

Post by alblue »

jshen wrote: post #136
preommr wrote: post #87

I use Go quite a bit, and I have the exact opposite experience from a lot of these testimonials. Someone else mentioned go just works, they don't have to fight the tooling, or that they worked on a go program that works five years later (which language does this not apply to). ??? I've had quite a few problems with things like plugins for go deleting unused imports because I am in the habit of saving frequently. I re…

“that they worked on a go program that works five years later (which language does this not apply to). ??? ” Doesn’t apply to most that I’ve used. Java, JavaScript, Ruby, python, PHP.

It’s still possible to run Java programs that were compiled for 1.2 on modern day JVMs without change.

Re: Eleven Years of Go

#164

Post by alblue »

thegeekpirate wrote: post #162
tbrock wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love go but im annoyed they didn't choose angle brackets for the syntax. It's illogical to be annoyed at this, i know, but it feels like being different just for the sake of being different.

> Angle brackets require unbounded parser look-ahead or type information in certain situations https://groups.google.com/g/golang-nuts/c/7t-Q2vt60J8

The argument seems to be that a,b=cg could be misplaced based on whether this is a generic type or a pair of comparisons.

They then go on to say that they needed to revisit the design in the square brackets case to insert the keyword “type” whenever generics were used, which means this example would presumably become c which resolves the ambiguity.

It seems more likely it was an issue discovered atbut not revisited when the issue was fixed, and now inertia is keeping it as is.

Re: Eleven Years of Go

#165

Post by valyala »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #155
valyala wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll be happy if generics will be never included in Go. They will definitely reduce code readability, will increase binary sizes and will increase compile times because of generics' abusers. I wrote a ton of various code in Go [1] over the last 10 years and had never experienced the need in generics. The last my project in Go is VictoriaMetrics [2] - fast and cost-effective open source time series database and monito…

> I'll be happy if generics will be never included in Go. They will definitely reduce code readability, will increase binary sizes and will increase compile times because of generics' abusers. Well you don't have to use them and you won't have to use any of the libraries that use them. Just like C++ templates, some C++ shops forbid their use. But that's your problem, don't make everybody else suffer from what is cons…

It would be great if you could provide practical examples where generics could significantly improve Go code.

Re: Eleven Years of Go

#166

Post by valyala »

kinjba11 wrote: post #159
valyala wrote: post #153

Go is my primary programming language during the last 10 year. I absolutely love Go because of the following features: * Great code readability. I can open any project in Go and instantly start reading and understanding the code. This is because of simple syntax, which doesn't provide ability to write implicitly executed code, and `go fmt` tool, which formats everybody's code to a single code style. * Go discourages…

> constant pain with reading and debugging C++ templates C++ templates are a nightmare agreed. What C++ does is just one way, a poor way, to implement generics. Please do not conflate generics with C++. If you've ever worked with C#, Java, TypeScript, or others you'll know that "generics" come in many different flavors. Some are quite nice. Generics are coming to Go ([ https://www.gophercon.com/agenda/session/233094…

It would be great if generics could be used by a small team of professional Go developers who clearly understand strong and weak sides of generics. Unfortunately this is impossible in real world :( I predict that generics in Go will lead to much more poorly written hard to read and debug packages and apps.

Re: Eleven Years of Go

#167

Post by emilp89 »

yyyuutt wrote: post #124
domano wrote: post #94

Go has been a career kickstarter for me and gambling on it for a multi year ecommerce project was a hit, for me at least. I switched from so-so Java dev to Senior Dev, Go Trainer and Systems Architect and Go played a very big part. It has its' shortcomings, but what i have learned due to just writing stuff instead of using enterprise frameworks was eye opening and i would be a comoletely different lerson today. Thank…

Yeah there is a lot of freedom that comes from a smaller set of choices. Java is so vast and so many libraries it is overwhelming and solutions are usually over engineered. With Go its nice to just write some code.

I am a C# developer. I don't like that the number of features and frameworks is increasing with every new release. It's overwhelming.

I tried Go, but I couldn't get into it. I don't know why. I guess it's like leaving prison. You can't go anywhere. Then suddenly you can go anywhere you like, but you feel paralyzed. The freedom itself is also overwhelming.

Re: Eleven Years of Go

#168

Post by jshen »

alblue wrote: post #163
jshen wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“that they worked on a go program that works five years later (which language does this not apply to). ??? ” Doesn’t apply to most that I’ve used. Java, JavaScript, Ruby, python, PHP.

It’s still possible to run Java programs that were compiled for 1.2 on modern day JVMs without change.

Yeah, Java is better than most languages at this too. It’s still too early to say for sure, but Go feels better at this point. it has more to do with the libraries, dependencies, and ecosystem relative to Java.

I don’t even remember what I was using for Java 1.2. Maybe ant and struts? I doubt there’s a good path to update such things without a giant rewrite or refactor.

Re: Eleven Years of Go

#169

Post by throw_m239339 »

valyala wrote: post #165
throw_m239339 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'll be happy if generics will be never included in Go. They will definitely reduce code readability, will increase binary sizes and will increase compile times because of generics' abusers. Well you don't have to use them and you won't have to use any of the libraries that use them. Just like C++ templates, some C++ shops forbid their use. But that's your problem, don't make everybody else suffer from what is cons…

It would be great if you could provide practical examples where generics could significantly improve Go code.

> It would be great if you could provide practical examples where generics could significantly improve Go code.

It would be great if you stopped patronizing people who just provided you an explanation you just don't want to hear.

Re: Eleven Years of Go

#170

Post by GordonS »

valyala wrote: post #153

Go is my primary programming language during the last 10 year. I absolutely love Go because of the following features: * Great code readability. I can open any project in Go and instantly start reading and understanding the code. This is because of simple syntax, which doesn't provide ability to write implicitly executed code, and `go fmt` tool, which formats everybody's code to a single code style. * Go discourages…

Are you using an IDE?

Coming from dotnet I'm kind of spoiled here, with both Visual Studio and Rider being excellent choices. They also bring things like a great debugging dev UX, and the possibility to change variable values and code during an active debugging session - is there anything like that for Go?

Post reply on HN