Go 1.18
go.dev
Go 1.18
1–10 of 614 posts
Re: Go 1.18
#2Release notes are here: https://go.dev/doc/go1.18
Re: Go 1.18
#3This 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 language design, but I suspect that doesn't account for all of it. It seems to me that the intensity with which some people fixated on the absence of generics cannot be explained just by frustration with writing non-generic code, which by all accounts was annoying but not overwhelmingly so.
So, for those of you who are willing to explore the part of this that goes beyond a simple rational analysis and criticism of language design, whats bugging you?
Sometimes I think the core irritation with Go is its simplicity. The suggestion that easy to learn languages can be effective too is somewhat humiliating, as we get attached to the pride of mastering more complex languages, and the suggestion is that some of the struggling we went through was unnecessary, and that folks who wont struggle as much might be able to be effective too, in fact the suggestion is that maybe our pride was misplaced.
Theres also a suggestion, in the fact that Go has opinions, that other opinions might be "wrong". I think this may bug people, who would take up those other opinions or see merit in them, a lot. There's also a bit of an anti-expertise "who are you, Go creators, to say you know better than me how to design this program/engage in software development?"
In any case, it's something I've been trying to figure out for a while and I don't think I have a complete explanation still. Curious to see what others think.
Re: Go 1.18
#4WOOO!
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 enjoy a chaining library, and some tooling to make type coersion a bit cleaner.
Re: Go 1.18
#5WOOO! 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…
You might like Go-Chainable: https://github.com/neurocollective/go_chainable
Re: Go 1.18
#6This 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…
People are upset that their favourite language didn't get as popular as Go.
Re: Go 1.18
#7This 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…
People are upset that their favourite language didn't get as popular as Go.
Counter point: Generics make me far more inclined to use Go regularly. If error handling is improved to be safer and more ergonomic, it'll be incredibly compelling for me.
Generics were the biggest feature keeping me from using the language, and now that's a done deal. I'm excited.
Re: Go 1.18
#8This 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…
> It seems to me the next object of hatred is the lack of sum types.
Sum types may be coming in a close future release, since the notation
type T interface {
int | string
}
Re: Go 1.18
#9Now Go sucks because there are too many generics.
Re: Go 1.18
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are upset that their favourite language didn't get as popular as Go.
Counter point: Generics make me far more inclined to use Go regularly. If error handling is improved to be safer and more ergonomic, it'll be incredibly compelling for me. Generics were the biggest feature keeping me from using the language, and now that's a done deal. I'm excited.
If you consider the adoption rate, it's pretty clear that the people who avoid Go because of are a vocal minority.