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

Why I Don't Like Golang (2016)

teamten.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 237 posts

Re: Why I Don't Like Golang (2016)

#11

Post by the_only_law »

dragonwriter wrote: post #6
nemothekid wrote: post #3

> There’s no ternary (?:) operator. Every C-like language has had this, and I miss it every day that I program in Go. The language is removing functional idioms right when everyone is agreeing that these are useful. And everyone agreed so hard that it was removed from almost every modern C replacement (Rust, Nim, Zig, Elixir, Kotlin).

Rust has if/else (ternary) and match (N-ary) expressions, so it doesn't need a separate ternary operator. All of the other “C replacements” listed (which are a weird list for that description, especially Elixir, but whatever) have at least if/else-expressions, which, again, are ternaries.

Yeah if I can have decent pattern matching I can live without some other syntax sugars.

Re: Why I Don't Like Golang (2016)

#12

Post by faitswulff »

voidfunc wrote: post #7
implying wrote: post #5

They've fixed the import / modules situation to a point where it's usable and much improved, and generics have been added. However, the issue this brings up about structs / types not explicitly declaring which interfaces they implement is a real and unaddressed problem, especially in large codebases. The only tool that I'm aware of that finds implementations is GoLand, at steep JetBrains prices. Figuring out what typ…

When developers who usually make 6 figures of money complain about $90/yr IDE price I just cannot help laugh. Actually it's even better... the price elevators down from $90 -> year2 90 - 20% -> year3 90 - 40%. Over three years that's like $150-$200 total and it will save you so many headaches. But that's a steep price? Are you kidding? Why do developers hate tools that cost money when they save them time and allow th…

I would be more supportive of this message if it was a $90 LSP server that you could support by buying (a la intelephense), but software developers are very opinionated about their editors and not everyone wants to use IntelliJ products.

Re: Why I Don't Like Golang (2016)

#13

Post by sanderjd »

voidfunc wrote: post #7
implying wrote: post #5

They've fixed the import / modules situation to a point where it's usable and much improved, and generics have been added. However, the issue this brings up about structs / types not explicitly declaring which interfaces they implement is a real and unaddressed problem, especially in large codebases. The only tool that I'm aware of that finds implementations is GoLand, at steep JetBrains prices. Figuring out what typ…

When developers who usually make 6 figures of money complain about $90/yr IDE price I just cannot help laugh. Actually it's even better... the price elevators down from $90 -> year2 90 - 20% -> year3 90 - 40%. Over three years that's like $150-$200 total and it will save you so many headaches. But that's a steep price? Are you kidding? Why do developers hate tools that cost money when they save them time and allow th…

Not to mention how much the company paying their salary (who should be paying for their IDE) makes!

Re: Why I Don't Like Golang (2016)

#14

Post by Nursie »

implying wrote: post #10
voidfunc wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When developers who usually make 6 figures of money complain about $90/yr IDE price I just cannot help laugh. Actually it's even better... the price elevators down from $90 -> year2 90 - 20% -> year3 90 - 40%. Over three years that's like $150-$200 total and it will save you so many headaches. But that's a steep price? Are you kidding? Why do developers hate tools that cost money when they save them time and allow th…

Putting fundamental features of the language behind a price barrier at all will keep students and people who want to experiment with the language out of the ecosystem. This isn't a papercut, it's an intentional omission that has backfired and can only be fixed by tooling. If the only way to access an often necessary feature is proprietary, why not make the whole language proprietary at that point?

> students

https://www.jetbrains.com/community/education/#students

Re: Why I Don't Like Golang (2016)

#15

Post by Hasu »

nemothekid wrote: post #3

> There’s no ternary (?:) operator. Every C-like language has had this, and I miss it every day that I program in Go. The language is removing functional idioms right when everyone is agreeing that these are useful. And everyone agreed so hard that it was removed from almost every modern C replacement (Rust, Nim, Zig, Elixir, Kotlin).

This is entirely off topic, but how are Elixir or Kotlin "modern C replacements"? Elixir is built off of Erlang and has influences from Ruby and Clojure, and Kotlin is a replacement for Java.

Rust, Nim, Zig, and Go are all fair game in that list, as far as I know being a C replacement is in the mission statement for the creation of all those languages.

Re: Why I Don't Like Golang (2016)

#16

Post by X6S1x6Okd1st »

implying wrote: post #5

They've fixed the import / modules situation to a point where it's usable and much improved, and generics have been added. However, the issue this brings up about structs / types not explicitly declaring which interfaces they implement is a real and unaddressed problem, especially in large codebases. The only tool that I'm aware of that finds implementations is GoLand, at steep JetBrains prices. Figuring out what typ…

You can explicitly declare that it implements an interface:

https://go.dev/play/p/VCcrSXT59w0

Re: Why I Don't Like Golang (2016)

#17

Post by mikebenfield »

nemothekid wrote: post #3

> There’s no ternary (?:) operator. Every C-like language has had this, and I miss it every day that I program in Go. The language is removing functional idioms right when everyone is agreeing that these are useful. And everyone agreed so hard that it was removed from almost every modern C replacement (Rust, Nim, Zig, Elixir, Kotlin).

> And everyone agreed so hard that it was removed from almost every modern C replacement

They removed it because they made the regular "if" statement into an expression, so the separate "ternary" operator expression is superfluous. Rust et al made the "if" situation better than C; Go made it worse.

Re: Why I Don't Like Golang (2016)

#18

Post by sriram_malhar »

xigoi wrote: post #9
voidfunc wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When developers who usually make 6 figures of money complain about $90/yr IDE price I just cannot help laugh. Actually it's even better... the price elevators down from $90 -> year2 90 - 20% -> year3 90 - 40%. Over three years that's like $150-$200 total and it will save you so many headaches. But that's a steep price? Are you kidding? Why do developers hate tools that cost money when they save them time and allow th…

Professional developers in the USA usually make 6 figures.

Musicians and carpenters make far less than programmers, but they still buy their tools. Software people are too entitled. Even if you are not professional, you can still afford 54c a day ($200 a year). Even a programmer in India can.

Re: Why I Don't Like Golang (2016)

#20

Post by 5e92cb50239222b »

sriram_malhar wrote: post #18
xigoi wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Professional developers in the USA usually make 6 figures.

Musicians and carpenters make far less than programmers, but they still buy their tools. Software people are too entitled. Even if you are not professional, you can still afford 54c a day ($200 a year). Even a programmer in India can.

Many junior developers in my city make around $300 a month. After spending $200 on rent and most of the rest on food, you're not left with much. I understand nobody really cares about crap-holes like mine when they're making most of their money in Western Europe and North America, so just throwing it out there.
Post reply on HN