151–160 of 168 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Golaris has a nice ring to it actually... Rolls of the tongue a bit - however sounds more like an ailment. "Oh, I got the golaris! better get an ointment for this"
You mean an app ointment ?
Anyone care to share their experience writing something in go? I've toyed with it but not built anything in production. FWIW, the go dashboard ( https://godashboard.appspot.com/ ) has a number of interesting projects.
I've built a production entity resolution system using 100% Go. It implements a map/reduce model with many workers and multiple (for failover) masters. All data is held in memory for speed purposes. Things that are amazing about go: fun and fast to develop in; beautifully designed (rockstart founding team, than you!); RPC, net channels, and maps and strings, to name a few. The ability to quickly create servers to hos…
Don't be afraid to read the code in the stdlib, is very readable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With interfaces, it's pretty simple to replicate patterns like a Container or Channel , to borrow common Java syntax. Personally, I like how it forces you to think about parametricity whenever you want polymorphism, like most functional languages.
But, unless I'm missing something, it's missing the supporting bits you get in a nice functional language, like algebraic datatypes and pattern matching, which make that style much more pleasant. Of course, most of the functional language DO have generics, and full type inference to boot, also.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
With interfaces, it's pretty simple to replicate patterns like a Container or Channel , to borrow common Java syntax. Personally, I like how it forces you to think about parametricity whenever you want polymorphism, like most functional languages.
But, unless I'm missing something, it's missing the supporting bits you get in a nice functional language, like algebraic datatypes and pattern matching, which make that style much more pleasant. Of course, most of the functional language DO have generics, and full type inference to boot, also.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have written a bit of Go. It strikes me as sort of the Unix of programming languages. It's very opinionated, takes some overarching concepts, mostly channels and interfaces, then proceeds to thoroughly not care what you think about it: refuses to have generics, lambdas and tail-call recursion like a pro. The polar opposite of design by committee. It even enforces a True Brace Style to keep the parser simple! Techni…
Why would you move from Haskell to Go? There's a night-and-day difference between them. I don't understand why you'd switch to a language because of the features it's lacking, unless you think those features are a bad thing (and I have yet to see a reason why generics and TCO are a bad thing).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But, unless I'm missing something, it's missing the supporting bits you get in a nice functional language, like algebraic datatypes and pattern matching, which make that style much more pleasant. Of course, most of the functional language DO have generics, and full type inference to boot, also.
The ML language family does, other functional languages (the LISP family, Erlang) don't.
So, in other words, Lisp doesn't have generics in the same way Python doesn't have generics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can answer just for myself. I don't like to spend time on irrelevant things like "why the binary does not link", "in which shared library this undefined symbol is located" or "how to parse XML", or even plain "why it does not work". With Go I _usually_ have a predictable process of writing a program, when simple things are simple and complex things are reachable. It makes me happy.
Isn't that just because parsing XML in Go is difficult bordering on impossible? Or are you saying there's some other language that forces you to think about XML when you don't want to?