11–20 of 30 posts
> func main() { > animals := []Animal{Dog{}, Cat{}, Llama{}, JavaProgrammer{}} > for _, animal := range animals { > fmt.Println(animal.Speak()) > } > } This makes my eyes hurt. In this modern age we still haven't learned to create easy to read languages?
> type JavaProgrammer struct { > } > func (j JavaProgrammer) Speak() string { > return "Design patterns!" > } shrug At least our language designers trusted our intelligence enough to implement generics.
Trusted you so much that they even tripped on co/contravariance to add to the challenge :p
Or to give a concrete example, say you want to do formatted output to stderr. How is one supposed to determine that os.Stderr is something that can be passed to fmt.Fprintf? Is there a better way than manually comparing method signatures?
> func main() { > animals := []Animal{Dog{}, Cat{}, Llama{}, JavaProgrammer{}} > for _, animal := range animals { > fmt.Println(animal.Speak()) > } > } This makes my eyes hurt. In this modern age we still haven't learned to create easy to read languages?
Not sure I understand - what part of this is not easy to read? It's quite familiar to read and make sense to any programmer who's had experience with any of the C-like languages.
Interesting. For pointers and interfaces, in this sample http://play.golang.org/p/Lf8nn_pcYO , `h3.Add2()` should fail as per OP said. I am sure, I am missing something important here. Please help.
>A method call x.m() is valid if the method set of (the type of) x contains m and the argument list can be assigned to the parameter list of m. If x is addressable and &x's method set contains m, x.m() is shorthand for(&x).m()
In other words, if a type T no method M, it will look for M in *T's methods.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the syntax is terse mostly for the sake of example. There's a lot going on in about 3 lines.
I don't think "terse" quite describes it. Python can be terse, as you can say: n = sum(x for x in my_sequence if x % 2 == 0) But the Go code listed above is not just plagued with a lot going on in "3 lines". I think there's something to be said about gratuitous operators, and a sort of beauty to letting the parser do more work than the programmer themselves. I don't use Go at all, but from the example above I can tel…
If you don't us Go at all then you can't tell anything from a single 3 line example. It's like judging an entire Linux distro based solely on a couple of screenshots.
What the he'll is going wrong with HN lately that I can't open a programming thread without superficial criticisms from someone who's never actually coded in that particular language, and troll posts about how Java / whatever is better / already supports feature x.....
People complain about the zealous attitudes of language fanboys, but honestly I think the dogmatic negativity on HN is becoming a far greater issue.
When navigating unfamiliar Go codebases, it's hard to know which types fulfill an interface. Say you have a function that takes an Animal; how do you figure out what to call it with? Or to give a concrete example, say you want to do formatted output to stderr. How is one supposed to determine that os.Stderr is something that can be passed to fmt.Fprintf? Is there a better way than manually comparing method signatures…
> func main() { > animals := []Animal{Dog{}, Cat{}, Llama{}, JavaProgrammer{}} > for _, animal := range animals { > fmt.Println(animal.Speak()) > } > } This makes my eyes hurt. In this modern age we still haven't learned to create easy to read languages?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the syntax is terse mostly for the sake of example. There's a lot going on in about 3 lines.
I don't think "terse" quite describes it. Python can be terse, as you can say: n = sum(x for x in my_sequence if x % 2 == 0) But the Go code listed above is not just plagued with a lot going on in "3 lines". I think there's something to be said about gratuitous operators, and a sort of beauty to letting the parser do more work than the programmer themselves. I don't use Go at all, but from the example above I can tel…
mySequence.filter { it % 2 == 0 }.sum()