Live data from Hacker News

Just Use Go

blainsmith.com

111–120 of 238 posts

Re: Just Use Go

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's likely being flagged because people believe it's more AI-written than not

Let me copy paste my other comment: "This is getting really fucking irritating. Every 3rd comment on every HN post is "This is LLM", which has become a proxy for "I dont like it so it must be llm"

This one has major signs of LLM speak, specifically Claude.

Normal humans who rant like, actually rant. This is AI generated rant.

Re: Just Use Go

#113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me copy paste my other comment: "This is getting really fucking irritating. Every 3rd comment on every HN post is "This is LLM", which has become a proxy for "I dont like it so it must be llm"

Yeah, I suppose I am in the minority here, but I still judge a posts on their merits. LLM witch hunts are tiresome. (Perhaps the worst part too is that an accusation can be leveled and there's no way to counter. If it's a vacuous fluff piece, say so—irregardless of who/how it was written. And there we are judging a piece on its merits…)

Yeah I didn't flag it myself. I skimmed it and I didn't get an immediate AI vibe, like someone else said it seemed to be trying to use the motherf*in website style

Re: Just Use Go

#114

I've worked on large Go codebases on large teams at large orgs with large dreams. That garbage us straight up unmaintainable in the large and nobody can convince me otherwise. I have deep knowledge of the language, platform, used it for over a decade. It sucks.

My experience is directly counter. I've worked in half a dozen very large orgs and moving from interpreted languages to Go in each one made the system easier to reason about, more maintainable, and easier to onboard new team members. Go strikes a balance between all the competing priorities that has, in my personal experience, improved the engineering velocity across half a dozen companies comprised of hundreds of developers each. For two organizations, they made very coupled and hard to reason about code bases, but those were vastly easier to reason about than had they been written in, say, python or ruby.

Re: Just Use Go

#115
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that Rust's approach is better. I'm questioning the claim that Go "forces you" to handle errors, since to my understanding with Go someone can just eschew that 3-line boilerplate, silently ignoring the error, and still use the result (which is bad).

The point being that's how you've decided to deal with the error, by ignoring it.

Silently ignoring errors by leaving out some boilerplate doesn't really seem like an active/forced decision, or a selling point over the languages it disparages ("[...] hellscape doesn't make errors disappear, it just hides them"). Then that the correct path is the one of more resistance seems poor design, in my surface-level opinion.

Re: Just Use Go

#116

I can't see any reason this list why I should use Go over C# / .NET. .NET has almost all these upsides, but with a concurrency model (async/await) that is (now) more transferable to other languages.

I can see reasons why people don't want to use .NET if Go is available. .NET has its merits but it's bloated, compilation is slow, and I find it's tooling to be really annoying. For me go is just above c# and both of those are not super high on my list.

I've never understood what is meant by "bloated", would you mind explaining, so perhaps I could better understand?

If it's "Large standard library", I think that's a selling point. Having anything you need available ( although these days, via optional microsoft.* packages ) helps keep projects consistent between different places.

If it means "Different ways to do the same thing", I can understand that criticism better, and some of that comes with 20+ years of legacy, where the wrong thing was done, and now there's a better way, but a ruthless adherence to backward compatibility means that the old way isn't dropped.

Re: Just Use Go

#117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone has to review the LLM generated code. If it's not the developer, it's the SRE at 2 am. For someone without significant experience, it might be harder to review Rust than Go.

Not sure it's harder. Rust type system makes it much harder to shoot yourself in the foot with nils and errors, at least. Biggest issue is probably the number of 3rd party dependencies every non-trivial Rust app ends up needing.

I guess other languages that follow a stricter/larger compile time regimen e.g. Haskell, OCaml, Idris, ATS, F* would be suitable as well for this kind of approach. Like Go, OCaml seems to offer low compilation times.

Re: Just Use Go

#118

For web stuff, I enjoy https://htmx.org so Go + Templ + HTMX (aka the GOTH stack) Or, if you prefer more of a power tools feel, then HTMX and Raku in functional style ( https://harcstack.org ) maybe to your liking. Which I call the Crotch Rocket of the programming world.

That looks like a fun stack—especially the Raku—but have you ever actually deployed anything using it?

Re: Just Use Go

#119
I have been using Go since 2014. I have services that just run without issue.

Having backwards compatibility with 1.0 just makes it easier to maintain software.

The big plus in the modern era is that the simplicity of the language lends to having agents write Go without much fuss. That and the standard library being batteries include lets you direct the agent to use little or no third party dependencies.

Re: Just Use Go

#120

Since AI coding, I've switched 90% of my code to Go. It's really great for most things. Lacks a development community large enough to have a really solid UI framework, but the existing frameworks are "good enough". I used AI to make an AI agent that works on Windows, Linux, Mac, iOS, and Android, with CLI, GUI, and web serving. LOC: 5575. Binary size: 35MB. Also: why can't we vouch for flagged stories now? This post…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN