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

Go 1.18

go.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 614 posts

Re: Go 1.18

#71

Post by pkulak »

_0w8t wrote: post #67

For me the most puzzling aspect of Go is channels. Ada tried CSP (Concurrent Sequential Processes that Go channels are based on) in eighties and people quickly realized that it lead to bad performance and was unsuitable for a lot of useful cases. So Ada got standard mutexes and signals. So why CSP which does not allow to implement priority delivery or multicasting and makes cancelling much harder compared with normal…

I can never seem to understand why a GCed language has pointers, and makes you memorize when to use stack vs heap.

Re: Go 1.18

#73

Post by freedomben »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #37
freedomben wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not the target market for your question, but I stopped using Go mainly because I felt constrained. I prefer functional programming style and that was very difficult in Go. More than that, I hated having the language dictate to me where my code had to live (this has since been fixed). I also disliked the lack of a package manager (also since fixed). I do dislike the verbosity of Go programs (some of which is force…

> I'm not the target market for your question, but I stopped using Go mainly because I felt constrained. I prefer functional programming style and that was very difficult in Go. Yeah, Go is opinionated. I like functional programming style too (because I like being abstract), but it's hard for me to deny that it's easier for people to read code which is more concrete and standardized (fewer ways to express the same id…

Yes absolutely, I did most of my Go programming in the 1.5 days, so (as I mentioned) some of my dislikes have been fixed.

> but it's hard for me to deny that it's easier for people to read code which is more concrete and standardized (fewer ways to express the same idea) even if there is more boilerplate.

Yes, absolutely agree. When working on a team, especially a big team, that's a huge benefit that shouldn't be overlooked.

Re: Go 1.18

#74

Post by MAGZine »

ainar-g wrote: post #28
gerbilly wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would like to understand a bit more about where a lot of the Go criticism comes from. Go is really s souped up version of C. It's a design rooted in the 70s with some fixes to make it a good language for writing small networked apps. Insofar as that goes¹, the language is fine. However the creators of Go responded to critiques of the language in a patronizing manner and talked down to their own programming commun…

> However the creators of Go responded to critiques of the language in a patronizing manner and talked down to their own programming community at Google as being unable to handle complex languages. Can you provide examples of that? Because the closest thing I can remember is Go creators saying that C++ had too many features interacting in weird ways, and that they wanted to avoid that. Which is a perfectly normal des…

look at most threads when people ask about quirky aspects of go, such as:

a) why are there such short variable names, such that you see calls like b.c.d.Method() all of the time?

b) why is there no Set type?

c) why is date/time encoding/decoding inconsistent in json marshaling/unmarshaling (versus other types)?

Re: Go 1.18

#76

Post by zozbot234 »

_0w8t wrote: post #67

For me the most puzzling aspect of Go is channels. Ada tried CSP (Concurrent Sequential Processes that Go channels are based on) in eighties and people quickly realized that it lead to bad performance and was unsuitable for a lot of useful cases. So Ada got standard mutexes and signals. So why CSP which does not allow to implement priority delivery or multicasting and makes cancelling much harder compared with normal…

Go has shared memory and mutexes, but using them means giving up on memory safety because the whole rigmarole that Rust does to preserve safety in concurrent code is totally missing in Go. So that's a meaningful reason to stick to CSP - sure, it might create easy deadlocks but at least it won't totally crash your app with a potentially exploitable fault.

Re: Go 1.18

#77

Post by mseepgood »

gerbilly wrote: post #20
philosopher1234 wrote: post #3

This is very exciting! Generics will be helpful for some, I'm sure, but my reading of the winds is that people will find other idiosyncracies of Go to latch onto and complain about. It seems to me the next object of hatred is the lack of sum types. I would like to understand a bit more about where a lot of the Go criticism comes from. Of course some amount of it comes from direct frustrations people have with the lan…

> I would like to understand a bit more about where a lot of the Go criticism comes from. Go is really s souped up version of C. It's a design rooted in the 70s with some fixes to make it a good language for writing small networked apps. Insofar as that goes¹, the language is fine. However the creators of Go responded to critiques of the language in a patronizing manner and talked down to their own programming commun…

> Go is really s souped up version of C.

But with generics, methods and interfaces, proper strings, maps etc., first-class functions, built-in concurrency, a module system, automatic memory management, a well-rounded standard library and so so so much more.

Re: Go 1.18

#78

Post by vlunkr »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #49
candiddevmike wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Go's criticisms come from elitism more than anything--folks can't flex their algebraic programming muscles and instead have to do error checking inline or do some WET things due to lack of generics like some amateur. To me, Go is never the wrong choice, but it may not be the best choice for some projects.

I'm a Go proponent, but I also feel this. Sometimes I want to be very abstract and clever. I've written a static site generator in Rust, not because a Go version would be too slow or error prone, but because I liked the idea of being gratuitously abstract and efficient. I feel clever and I like the aesthetic of very abstract programs. But this is almost always at-odds with the objectives of software development--very…

Agreed. I don't think the hate is that hard to understand. If you're coming from a more expressive language (which is most of them), it's a bit of a shock. I got over it and learned to love it, but I've seen others that don't, and I understand.

Re: Go 1.18

#79

Post by hi41 »

anthropodie wrote: post #72
mseepgood wrote: post #61

Why post this useless Github link instead of the release notes or the blog post?

yes @dang please re-link this post to https://go.dev/doc/go1.18

That’s a cool feature you used there. I didn’t know you could use the at-the-rate symbol to reference a hn user and call his attention! Very nice!

Re: Go 1.18

#80

Post by edenlinger »

honkycat wrote: post #4

WOOO! I have been using the RC at work lately, and I have to say: The generics implementation is quite nice, and RUTHLESSLY slashes boilerplate and copy-pasta. This is going to turn Golang from "that one boilerplate-y language without generics" into my favorite language. I've been using the https://github.com/samber/lo library, and it is very nice to be able to do "map/reduce/etc..." on golang structs. I would really…

I don't mean to disparage the wonderful work of the lo developers but, this is in many ways what I feared generics would bring. If you aren't going to lean into the simplicity and single way of doing something, you are likely better served in another language.

I am probably an old man yelling at clouds and I hope those who like this style get tons of value from it. I just don't see the benefit of trying to retrofit some of the behavior of other perfectly useful languages into Go. JS/Java/C#/Python/Ruby is a fine language. Let each of them have their strengths. I feel like trying to bolt things together this way only serves to take away what is special and valuable in Go.

I should probably shut up and just be happy lots of other people are using a language I enjoy :)

Post reply on HN