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

Go 2, here we come

blog.golang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 534 posts

Re: Go 2, here we come

#121

Post by pkulak »

tigershark wrote: post #88
joppy wrote: post #27

I’m hoping that https://github.com/golang/go/issues/19623 will come through, and we’ll get a native “true integer” type (and hopefully a rational one as well, though maybe this is pushing it a bit). This is really something that should be implemented at the language level, so that “int” can become a true integer, yet still remain efficient in many cases. It is bizarre to me that languages boasting built-in language-l…

I am misunderstanding or really go is using the ‘int’ type that can be 32 or 64 bit depending on the system that it runs on??? If this is the case I think that is crazy and I can’t think of any useful use case for it. If it’s not the case then please explain me what that proposal is really about...

You are not crazy, and it's what makes this proposal even more appropriate than other languages. "int" is already a magic type.

Re: Go 2, here we come

#122

Post by drb91 »

the_clarence wrote: post #104
joppy wrote: post #27

I’m hoping that https://github.com/golang/go/issues/19623 will come through, and we’ll get a native “true integer” type (and hopefully a rational one as well, though maybe this is pushing it a bit). This is really something that should be implemented at the language level, so that “int” can become a true integer, yet still remain efficient in many cases. It is bizarre to me that languages boasting built-in language-l…

Why oh why do people want a value to have different bounds depending on which system it is used? This is a source of huge confusion and why people stick to uint8 and other precise types

People have traditionally wanted to use the maximum sized type that can fit in a register.

Re: Go 2, here we come

#123

Post by org3432 »

copperx wrote: post #99
org3432 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you use Goland 2018 it's pretty seamless, there are a few things missing like being able to get ptr addresses and view values in hex, and it's a little laggy compared to VS but not bad.

Is Goland's debugger written by Jetbrains?

Yes, it uses delve under the hood and acts much the same way as VS.

Re: Go 2, here we come

#124

Post by tyrust »

slap_shot wrote: post #115
gnarbarian wrote: post #2

Go 2 Considered Harmful: https://homepages.cwi.nl/~storm/teaching/reader/Dijkstra68.p...

I appreciate a good joke, but is this really necessary on a thread like this? Here's the equivalent Reddit thread; better suited for this sort of comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/golang/comments/a1j3h6/go_2_here_we...

Smaller subreddits (like the one you linked) are typically against shitposting as well.

Re: Go 2, here we come

#126

Post by goto11 »

Zenst wrote: post #77
gnarbarian wrote: post #2

Go 2 Considered Harmful: https://homepages.cwi.nl/~storm/teaching/reader/Dijkstra68.p...

When I started work in the early 80's as a COBOL analyst programmer, I encountered ideology vs reality of GOTO. When I learned COBOL, I was taught Jackson Structured Programming. No use of GOTO at all, even exception handling. Fast forward in my first week into work and having done a nice JSP program for the task at hand a senior came over with my code and had a chat. Then took me to the system developers who did all…

> why do CPU's still have JUMP instructions you could counter-argue

Machine code is linear and executed one instruction at a time. It does not have the concept of blocks, so there is no way to have structured programming. Jumps are the only way to create a loop or conditional.

Re: Go 2, here we come

#128

Post by virmundi »

meddlepal wrote: post #75
AsyncAwait wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then don't, but actively wanting to see something gone that other enjoy is beyond tasteless.

I would love to completely avoid it, and I do when I can, but it has started to creep into every job out there now and especially in areas I spend a lot of time. So just avoiding it is not possible. I maintain it has been shoved down the industries throat for no good reason other than Google. It does nothing better than any of the existing mainstream languages and in many cases is a large step backwards. So no, I wil…

I don't like Go either, but I'm making my entire product on it. The reason is that I need multiple services, with a small memory foot print, which compiles to binary, all of which runs for web with either HTML or REST. As far as I can see there is no alternative. Java, which I've used for 15 years, requires a JVM, the currenct Alpine Docker for Java only go to 8, and require too much memory. Dlang looks interesting, but I can't find any modern resources on how to program it. The book I have says I have to pick between two competing collection libraries that are not interchangeable. C++ is not a good choice for what I'm doing. For the same reasons C# and Erlang/Elixer are out. As a result it does this better than mainstream languages.
Post reply on HN