Go 1.21 Release Candidate

No, it's because a use case was discovered that the for loop approach can't handle: NaN keys.

This is at least the biggest release since 1.18 with generics, possibly bigger. I’m excited because the changes demonstrate a transition from the traditional go philosophy of almost fanatical minimalism, to a more utilitarian approach.

Loop variable capture is a foot-gun that in the last six years has cost me about 10-20 hours of my life. So happy to see that go. (Next on my list of foot-guns would be the default infinite network timeouts — in other words, your code works perfectly for 1-N months and then suddenly breaks in production. I always set timeouts now; there’s basically no downside)

Interesting to see them changing course on some fundamental decisions made very early on. The slices *Func() functions use cmp() int instead of less() bool, which is a huge win in my book. Less was the Elegant yet bizarre choice — it often needs to be called twice, and isn’t as composable as cmp.

The slog package is much closer to the ecosystem consensus for logging. It’s very close to Uber’s zap, which we’re using now. The original log package was so minimal as to be basically useless. I wonder why they’re adding this now.

I’ve already written most of what’s in the slices and maps packages, but it’ll be nice to have blessed versions of those that have gone through much more API design rigor. I’ll be able to delete several hundred lines across our codebase.

What’s next? An http server that doesn’t force you to write huge amounts of boilerplate? Syntactic sugar for if err != nil? A blessed version of testify/assert? Maybe not, but I’m happy about these new additions.

Sure, there may be a right way to say this.

I have a particular axe to grind when it comes to the word “ownership” of objects in programming. In C++ and Rust there is a very natural sense of ownership in that the owner of an object is who may deallocate the object, and that ownership may be shared with std::shared_ptr in C++ or Rc / Arc in Rust. Ownership is such a useful concept in these languages because it is generally true that somebody must deallocate the object, and it must happen safely.

As a very natural consequence, people who spend long hours working in C++, Rust, C, or other similar languages start to associate, very closely, the notions of ownership and correctness. And indeed, ownership is broadly useful outside C++, Rust, and C. Even in a garbage-collected language like Java or Go, it is generally useful to have clear ownership. You don't modify objects that you don't own, or use objects outside their scope.

But occasionally, you come across a piece of code where ownership gets in the way. Perhaps some garbage-collected algorithm that transforms data with pointers going all over the place. It probably sounds like a mess, but that is not necessarily true either—it can be perfectly good, correct, readable code.

So while ownership is a useful concept for talking about specific pieces of Go code, or specific pieces of Java code, it is not applicable to all Go or Java code, and that’s fine. It’s kind of like talking about code in terms of functions—nearly every language on the planet makes heavy use of functions (or some equivalent), but it’s also true that code does not have to be organized in functions, and you will occasionally see code that does not use functions.

I would argue Go's inability to manage NaN keys is irrelevant to the desire for "clear", in that I would argue that the NaN keys issue should be fixed _regardless_ of clear.

It's hardly standard behaviour. I mean in Java for example there didn't used to be value types, so everything was a pointer and the effect of this would be the same as the new behaviour in Go.

The only lesson to be learned here is that languages are different. But I think the new Go behaviour is more ergonomic.