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

Go is boring

aeronotix.pl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 138 posts

Re: Go is boring

#11

Post by eru »

irishcoffee wrote: post #9
trung_pham wrote: post #2

I love static typed language. With a proper IDE, code navigation, completion work like magic. I end up doing less typing than the dynamic typed language. Have you ever tried to auto complete the 'init' function in RubyMine? It will ask you which one of the 100 init functions do you mean. :) Not with static typed language. There is only one init function to choose from because the IDE knows the exact type you are work…

I think the counter-argument here would be that dynamically-typed languages let the person behind the keyboard run the show, as opposed to the IDE.

Alas, nobody has written a really good IDE for Haskell, yet. So we still have to run the show for that statically typed language manually.

Re: Go is boring

#12

Post by hasenj »

eru wrote: post #10
hasenj wrote: post #8

I'd like to point out that I never heard of coroutines before Go. Not even in computer science; and I did take an Operating Systems course. I also never seen any language doing interfaces like Go. Go does it just right. I find that this is pretty impressive as a feature on its own.

> Not even in computer science; What did you specialize in? It's pretty easy to hit upon co-routines, if you have an interest in Scheme or even Haskell. But I can imagine, it's much harder if you are into, say, the innards of database schemas. (Just a random example.)

I don't know why I didn't come across it. Maybe if I took Operating System II ..

Re: Go is boring

#13

Post by eru »

trung_pham wrote: post #2

I love static typed language. With a proper IDE, code navigation, completion work like magic. I end up doing less typing than the dynamic typed language. Have you ever tried to auto complete the 'init' function in RubyMine? It will ask you which one of the 100 init functions do you mean. :) Not with static typed language. There is only one init function to choose from because the IDE knows the exact type you are work…

Static typing also makes overloading your f.unctions on return type instead of just arguments types possible. Not a lot of languages do this, though. I only know of one, but it's invaluable there.

Re: Go is boring

#14

Post by cageface »

trung_pham wrote: post #2

I love static typed language. With a proper IDE, code navigation, completion work like magic. I end up doing less typing than the dynamic typed language. Have you ever tried to auto complete the 'init' function in RubyMine? It will ask you which one of the 100 init functions do you mean. :) Not with static typed language. There is only one init function to choose from because the IDE knows the exact type you are work…

I do too but I'm finding that a lot of the time there are so many untyped inputs to a system that the static typing doesn't buy you that much. There always seems to be a ton of xml configuration data, incoming JSON from web services, databases with different type schemes etc.

Re: Go is boring

#15

Post by javert »

hasenj wrote: post #12
eru wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not even in computer science; What did you specialize in? It's pretty easy to hit upon co-routines, if you have an interest in Scheme or even Haskell. But I can imagine, it's much harder if you are into, say, the innards of database schemas. (Just a random example.)

I don't know why I didn't come across it. Maybe if I took Operating System II ..

I think you would have had to go deeper into programming languages, not deeper into operating systems.

Disclaimer: The above is definitely true for coroutines in general, but I don't know much about Go and whether its coroutines are truly unique.

Re: Go is boring

#16

Post by majormajor »

irishcoffee wrote: post #9
trung_pham wrote: post #2

I love static typed language. With a proper IDE, code navigation, completion work like magic. I end up doing less typing than the dynamic typed language. Have you ever tried to auto complete the 'init' function in RubyMine? It will ask you which one of the 100 init functions do you mean. :) Not with static typed language. There is only one init function to choose from because the IDE knows the exact type you are work…

I think the counter-argument here would be that dynamically-typed languages let the person behind the keyboard run the show, as opposed to the IDE.

IDEs are just another potentially-useful (some of them are better done than others) form of abstraction to let you focus on the important parts.

Re: Go is boring

#18

Post by mikebike »

eru wrote: post #13
trung_pham wrote: post #2

I love static typed language. With a proper IDE, code navigation, completion work like magic. I end up doing less typing than the dynamic typed language. Have you ever tried to auto complete the 'init' function in RubyMine? It will ask you which one of the 100 init functions do you mean. :) Not with static typed language. There is only one init function to choose from because the IDE knows the exact type you are work…

Static typing also makes overloading your f.unctions on return type instead of just arguments types possible. Not a lot of languages do this, though. I only know of one, but it's invaluable there.

Perl's a dynamic language, but return type can vary based on context. I once saw this really bite someone where the presence of parentheses on the left-hand side of the expression changed the behavior of the function being called on the right-hand side. Not fun to debug that one.

Re: Go is boring

#19

Post by protomyth »

eru wrote: post #11
irishcoffee wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the counter-argument here would be that dynamically-typed languages let the person behind the keyboard run the show, as opposed to the IDE.

Alas, nobody has written a really good IDE for Haskell, yet. So we still have to run the show for that statically typed language manually.

If I ever develop a program language, the first action I will take is the clang approach and make it a library based architecture. That way, people can build tools for the language including IDE integration without having to reinvent the wheel.

Re: Go is boring

#20

Post by pcwalton »

protomyth wrote: post #19
eru wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alas, nobody has written a really good IDE for Haskell, yet. So we still have to run the show for that statically typed language manually.

If I ever develop a program language, the first action I will take is the clang approach and make it a library based architecture. That way, people can build tools for the language including IDE integration without having to reinvent the wheel.

Yes, this has been invaluable for us in Rust. One cool thing we've been able to do with this architecture is to write a fuzzer -- a tool that uses the Rust compiler itself to generate random Rust programs to test the compiler's correctness.
Post reply on HN