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

Lies we tell ourselves to keep using Golang

fasterthanli.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 561 posts

Re: Lies we tell ourselves to keep using Golang

#201

Post by xiphias2 »

victoryhb wrote: post #184
xiphias2 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it's because it's not anything that hasn't been said before. Go is easy to start with and gets harder as you debug deep problems. Rust is very hard to start, then it gets easier over time. This has been said in many other threads, and we all know it's true.

So the reason for the censorship is they read the entire article and saw nothing "new" about something you "all know is true"? That's indeed a "new" way to discourage reasoned discussions.

Dang explained it many times, that HN is optimized for interesting things instead of just reasonable discussions, particularly if they are repetitive / predictable.

Also it's not a ,,new'' way to discourage reasoned discussions, it was already like that when you decided to join HN in 2016.

Re: Lies we tell ourselves to keep using Golang

#203

Post by sph »

ackfoobar wrote: post #192
sph wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the second day in a row where a post about Go _from the same blog_ has been posted. I think that's enough, especially since it's mostly a knee jerk reaction from that very HN post from yesterday. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31191700

This post is (sort-of) a response to yesterday's discussion. I think it's fair to post it today.

The author is active on HN, he was active on yesterday's thread. Shall we post tomorrow's response as well?

Re: Lies we tell ourselves to keep using Golang

#204

Post by npe »

fasterthanlime wrote: post #152
samhw wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's possible to implement CSP channels in most languages, but they're not first-class like go. But does that matter ? In all my experience, I can't think of any instances where that wouldn't be a distinction without a difference. (Perhaps I'm missing something, though.)

Defaults matter because friction matters, but friction there is largely removed by having a decent package manager, so I personally don't think it matters (though the topic of "what batteries should be included" has far from run its course).

The minute you put language constructs in the base syntax and runtime of the language, it's a lot more than friction. Love it or hate it, Go is inextricably tied to CSP.

Re: Lies we tell ourselves to keep using Golang

#205

Post by jayd16 »

yegle wrote: post #121
14113 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article: "[...] as developers get more and more senior, they tend to ignore more and more problems, because they've gotten so used to it. That's the way it's always been done, and they've learned to live with them, so they've stopped questioning it any more."

Hmm won't this apply to any language and therefore not a valid argument? A: language FOO is a great language! B: You are telling lies because you are fluent in this language and ignore the problems in the language.

Just speaking abstractly, whether problems are ignored has no bearing on the existence, size or count of the problems.

Re: Lies we tell ourselves to keep using Golang

#207

Post by stickfigure »

ackfoobar wrote: post #192
sph wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the second day in a row where a post about Go _from the same blog_ has been posted. I think that's enough, especially since it's mostly a knee jerk reaction from that very HN post from yesterday. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31191700

This post is (sort-of) a response to yesterday's discussion. I think it's fair to post it today.

No sort-of about it. The author directly quotes from yesterday's HN discussion. It's a continuation of the dialogue.

Re: Lies we tell ourselves to keep using Golang

#208

Post by jeroenhd »

adhoc_slime wrote: post #48
kitd wrote: post #12

The author obviously doesn't like Go. Ok, he can have his own opinions. I've been coding professionally since 1987, using everything from mainframe assembler, Fortran, C, VB, Java, C++, to most recently Go. IMHO, the language itself plays a smaller role in its usefulness than most think. As important is the tooling, stdlib, ecosystem, community and "StackOverflow"-ability. Go has a few warts, like every language, but…

This has perhaps been my biggest pain-point with Golang.. Woe unto those who do not follow the idiosyncrasies of how golang handles versioning, package management, tooling etc. if this is really your most important part of a language I would whole-heartedly recommend looking at rust which has been a breathe of fresh air in terms of package management and tooling.

I love Rust as a language but its packaging mechanism is as flawed as all the others. I don't really see what breath of fresh air it brings.

I suppose you can define feature flags in your Cargo.toml but that's about it.

Re: Lies we tell ourselves to keep using Golang

#209

Post by kgeist »

We have tens of microservices written in Go.

Go is good for onboarding new devs because it's simple. Our existing PHP devs were taught Go and it was painless. Jumping from PHP straight into Rust would be pretty painful, I think. Finding Rust devs isn't easy in our town.

But I agree with most of the points. You got to be very careful when writing in Go, because there are many gotchas. So many gotchas that I had to write a large document describing all the conventions and rules to remember to write bug-free (hopefully) Go. This "Go with conventions" reminds of the days when you'd try to simulate OOP in C - it works but error-prone.

Many of the problems are caught early with good unit and integration testing, however, just like with scripting languages. In my experience, most of the bugs in production in our Go microservices come from logical mistakes, not from misusing Go.

Post reply on HN