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

The State of Go

talks.golang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 172 posts

Re: The State of Go

#11

Post by [deleted] »

nickysielicki wrote: post #10
melling wrote: post #2

Nice little change in syntax. m := map[Point]string{ Point{29.935523, 52.891566}: "Persepolis", Point{-25.352594, 131.034361}: "Uluru", Point{37.422455, -122.084306}: "Googleplex", } may now be written as: m := map[Point]string{ {29.935523, 52.891566}: "Persepolis", {-25.352594, 131.034361}: "Uluru", {37.422455, -122.084306}: "Googleplex", }

I came into the comments to say that I very much dislike this change. I much prefer the extra syntax to not really knowing what '{29.935523, 52.891566}' actually means.

[deleted]

Re: The State of Go

#12

Post by dbaupp »

acomjean wrote: post #5

Pretty neat, go is now written in go "Go 1.5 has no C code in the tool chain or runtime.", go shared libraries interoperable with c. I'm really a go tinkerer, but I like the langauge. I didn't realize Garbage Collection was so expensive that the goal is to only have it run 20% of the time. But its a good goal. "Run Go application code for at least 40ms out of every 50ms."

That goal is referring to latency spikes. GC is usually much less than 20% of the time on average, but it may take, say, 200ms in one go and then run for 2 seconds without another collection. It seems their goal is to ensure there's no large pauses like that, so the 200ms would be spread across the 2 seconds as smaller time slices instead.

Re: The State of Go

#13

Post by zachberger »

nickysielicki wrote: post #10
melling wrote: post #2

Nice little change in syntax. m := map[Point]string{ Point{29.935523, 52.891566}: "Persepolis", Point{-25.352594, 131.034361}: "Uluru", Point{37.422455, -122.084306}: "Googleplex", } may now be written as: m := map[Point]string{ {29.935523, 52.891566}: "Persepolis", {-25.352594, 131.034361}: "Uluru", {37.422455, -122.084306}: "Googleplex", }

I came into the comments to say that I very much dislike this change. I much prefer the extra syntax to not really knowing what '{29.935523, 52.891566}' actually means.

It's in the declaration of the map. Rewriting it over and over is redundant encoding

Re: The State of Go

#14

Post by melling »

nogostill wrote: post #7

Still no generics, nor real type inference.

You created a burn account just to complain about this?

As you know, generics won't appear before 2.0, if ever. It's fine if that's a nonstarter for you. Perhaps you'll like Rust instead. It needs a big community too.

Re: The State of Go

#16

Post by axaxs »

nickysielicki wrote: post #10
melling wrote: post #2

Nice little change in syntax. m := map[Point]string{ Point{29.935523, 52.891566}: "Persepolis", Point{-25.352594, 131.034361}: "Uluru", Point{37.422455, -122.084306}: "Googleplex", } may now be written as: m := map[Point]string{ {29.935523, 52.891566}: "Persepolis", {-25.352594, 131.034361}: "Uluru", {37.422455, -122.084306}: "Googleplex", }

I came into the comments to say that I very much dislike this change. I much prefer the extra syntax to not really knowing what '{29.935523, 52.891566}' actually means.

Much agreed. Call me a masochist, but I prefer extra typing if it means readability, to me. And while subjective, retyping Point{} is much clearer to me than {}. It just looks...wrong.

Re: The State of Go

#17

Post by sanderjd »

The analysis and tracing tools look really wonderful. Have those been in the works / maturing for awhile, or is that all new tooling for 1.5?

Re: The State of Go

#18

Post by chowells »

melling wrote: post #14
nogostill wrote: post #7

Still no generics, nor real type inference.

You created a burn account just to complain about this? As you know, generics won't appear before 2.0, if ever. It's fine if that's a nonstarter for you. Perhaps you'll like Rust instead. It needs a big community too.

Why Rust? It doesn't really compete with Go anywhere. Haskell is a much stronger player in the space of high-level, garbage-collected languages. The only thing Rust and Haskell really have in common is not willfully ignoring the last 50 years of programming language design research.

Re: The State of Go

#19

Post by pcwalton »

ecnahc515 wrote: post #8
giaour wrote: post #3

Shared libraries? I thought "no DLLs" was one of the major design philosophies of Go.

One of the major design philosophies was ease of deployment, DLLs generally complicate that process, but for many purposes, they're a necessary tool. Interop with existing libraries is certainly a worthy enough feature to add to the Go toolchain, and it's an optional feature, so ease of deployment is still a primary concern, but if you need DLLs, this is available.

In particular, you've gotta have DLLs if you want to deploy on Android.

Re: The State of Go

#20

Post by aplummer »

chowells wrote: post #18
melling wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You created a burn account just to complain about this? As you know, generics won't appear before 2.0, if ever. It's fine if that's a nonstarter for you. Perhaps you'll like Rust instead. It needs a big community too.

Why Rust? It doesn't really compete with Go anywhere. Haskell is a much stronger player in the space of high-level, garbage-collected languages. The only thing Rust and Haskell really have in common is not willfully ignoring the last 50 years of programming language design research.

Doesn't it? Why do people seem to compare them all the time...
Post reply on HN