Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Why did you invent a false dichotomy in your head and stoop to a sarcastic swipe at a straw man? Hardly curiosity is it?
Because that is usually the extreme haters take.
Just Use Go
191–200 of 238 posts
Re: Just Use Go
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go was developed because two UNIX guys, and one Oberon guy, that didn't like C++ decided to create their own thing, and their manager decided to support them as their 20% project. Nothing else. The narrative of Google wanting Go never happened, it gets sold as such by many Googlers. Even Kubernetes was originally written in Java, before some Go folks joined in and drove the rewrite into Go, which besides the Android…
https://go.dev/doc/faq#creating_a_new_language
Yes, and?
Most of that was written by the Go team, not Google management, and even has the famous Rob Pike take on it.
The You Tube download rewrite from Python to Go, wasn't a management decision, rather yet another case of Go team taking language marketing into their own hands.
You will find posts from me on golang-nuts pre-1.0 days, as I was hopeful it would turn out differently back then, so I don't need education on how Go came to be.
Re: Just Use Go
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience only when you implement it correctly. If I add a new method to the interface I can't navigate to the implementations anymore because they don't completely implement the interface.
That's surely the correct behaviour?
It is. But it's also an inconvenience. In a language like Java I can just say that a class implements an interface. If the interface changes the compiler and the IDE tell me about the missing methods. Go not so much.
Re: Just Use Go
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://go.dev/doc/faq#creating_a_new_language
Yes, and? Most of that was written by the Go team, not Google management, and even has the famous Rob Pike take on it. The You Tube download rewrite from Python to Go, wasn't a management decision, rather yet another case of Go team taking language marketing into their own hands. You will find posts from me on golang-nuts pre-1.0 days, as I was hopeful it would turn out differently back then, so I don't need educatio…
> Most of that was written by the Go team, not Google management, and even has the famous Rob Pike take on it.
I am unable to understand your point or you seem to be making arguments that have nothing to do with the article nor with my earlier replies. I wonder why. Are you expecting sundar pichai to announce golang to his shareholders in his quarterly call? Which language does that?
This article and my replies are technical in nature. You need to have a technical response to a technical problem. You cant get emotional everytime. Which language allows me fast builds, lightweight and high performance concurrency, strong stdlib and tooling, easy cross compilation with static binaries, simple syntax, decent performance and by that i mean not worrying too much on memory management, easy onboarding and large scale maintainability? I am willing to try that tool.
Re: Just Use Go
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
What if Go went all the way? Referencing a zero pointer (nil) gives you the zero value of the pointed to type. If you try to access a zero map, it tries to deference the zero pointer to the underlying buffer. The zero pointer gives you the zero slice with zero length. The presence check fails without crashing and you get some pretension of reasonable behaviour.
So what happens when you write through the nil pointer?
Well, what happens when you write through an invalid pointer? The runtime can swallow the write or crash the program or allocate new storage and replace the pointer. Depends on the wanted semantics.
Re: Just Use Go
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
> that also compiles to a binary "compiles to a binary" is not a useful criterion. The criterion Go is winning on is "compiles to a single, completely self-contained binary," meaning it does not depend on libc or any external runtime. You can't say that about .NET. You can't say that about damn near any other programming language. It's extremely rare. The fact that .NET uses a binary packaging format is, like... well…
.Net can compile to a self-contained binary: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/deploying/nati...
I suppose you are missing the point. Go had support for self contained binaries since its introduction in ~2009. This was not the case with dotnet, if i am not wrong.
But nevertheless , if any language provides something like that, win-win for entire ecosystem.
Re: Just Use Go
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and? Most of that was written by the Go team, not Google management, and even has the famous Rob Pike take on it. The You Tube download rewrite from Python to Go, wasn't a management decision, rather yet another case of Go team taking language marketing into their own hands. You will find posts from me on golang-nuts pre-1.0 days, as I was hopeful it would turn out differently back then, so I don't need educatio…
> Most of that was written by the Go team, not Google management, and even has the famous Rob Pike take on it. I am unable to understand your point or you seem to be making arguments that have nothing to do with the article nor with my earlier replies. I wonder why. Are you expecting sundar pichai to announce golang to his shareholders in his quarterly call? Which language does that? This article and my replies are t…
Because your narrative is wrong, it wasn't a Google project, it was a group of Google employees that rebeled and were lucky to have their line manager support, given being UNIX idols.
Google upper management was, and is, perfectly fine with Java, Kotlin, C++ and Rust, for the most purposes.
I won't suggest any "technical" answer, because clearly you only want Go.
Re: Just Use Go
#198> if err != nil is the feature, not the bug. It forces you to look at every place something can go wrong and decide what to do about it. No it really doesn't. It litters your code with if statements that are all just about the same, except that one that needs to be different, and you go blind looking at them all and can't spot the difference. And these days people probably just type "tab" and their LLM assistant fill…
> No it really doesn't. It litters your code with if statements that are all just about the same Wrong thing to be bothered with. This allows static analysis of every possible path the code can take. Try to do that with throw/catch. There is a reason many industry guidelines like misra, jsf, etc just outright ban hidden paths. They have been literally catastrophic. There is a reason why many modern languages like go,…
I agree with all the motives you describe, yet come to the exact opposite conclusion.
The overwhelmingly common case is for an error in a nested call to be bubbled up to be handled by a parent call. If you make this common case look similar to the distinct case of actually handling an error, you just obscure where the real error handling happens.
Writing good error handling is Go is really hindered by two other issues mixing together: 1. There’s no Result type, so while it tries to treat errors as values, it’s missing out on a lot of the benefit of that idea. 2. Multiple function return values are implemented as a special case, and aren’t themselves a value
Most languages that support multiple return values, do it via some notion of tuples: returning a single aggregate value that you can pass around as a whole, but that also have some nice syntax for destructuring them into local variables. Go implements as a syntactic special case.
You can’t assign the multiple return values of a function call into a single variable. You’re forced to take all the parts, and pack them into a struct yourself. This means that you can’t factor your result-handling logic into testable functions, without needing to do this dance at every call site.
Re: Just Use Go
#199I often think of go as a "better" python. As in, easy to learn and easy to use. But also performant and the module system and package manager seem to be a little neater. (sorry for flamebait) But I wonder how well it can cover similar use cases? Go is great for devops and web backends. But what about AI and data science?
If Go interfaced with C as well as Python, I’d use it a lot more. But I’m using the slower language because it still integrates with more things For example, one reason AI is all in Python is because CUDA is basically part of the C ecosystem (ie build system)
Go interfaces with C better than Python does...
Re: Just Use Go
#200Yeah, it breaks when the author decides to move from Github into Gitlab to protest against Microsoft. Time to update all code references to Gitlab across the globe, in every single Go project. Or spend the time configuring redirects between URL mappings, across everything that depends on it. Not to mention that except for lacking garbage collection, even Turbo Pascal 7 for MS-DOS was more modern in language features,…
> Yeah, it breaks when the author decides to move from Github into Gitlab to protest against Microsoft.
The import path is disconnected from where the build system looks for the files. Of course, the default is to use the import path as an URL, right, but nothing forces you to do that. And if you do, *you* lock yourself to the hosting you use. But that can be hardly blamed on Go.
Documentation here: https://pkg.go.dev/cmd/go#hdr-Remote_import_paths
Full example: https://github.com/rsc/swtch/blob/master/app/rsc-io/main.go
tl;dr: Serve this at your domain, update the repo-root when changing host platform for your code: . No one else has to do anything.