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

31–40 of 534 posts

Re: Go 2, here we come

#31

Post by pjmlp »

ilovecaching wrote: post #9

Well I must say the Go team is certainly putting in the work to avoid a catastrophic major version bump (e.g. Python). That said, any major additive change to Go, especially generics and/or try/catch will push me away from the language. If I need a well designed language, I have Rust. Go's sell for me is it's so naively simplistic it's actually useful when your team members are idiots. If they bolt on type variables,…

Languages are products as well, either they grow to fulfil the needs of their customers or their fade away.

Re: Go 2, here we come

#32

Post by CydeWeys »

komali2 wrote: post #19

Hahah oh no, I literally started learning Go last night. Now what?

This is going to take years to happen, so you're fine. This is just an announcement of what the process for coming up with Go 2 is going to look like.

Re: Go 2, here we come

#33

Post by freedomben »

smudgymcscmudge wrote: post #28
asien wrote: post #26

I tried Go a while ago. I was hooked by the performance , the community around it and vendors support ( AWS , Heroku , GCloud etc...) but I got quickly fed up by the awkward package management system, the weird syntax and the horrible idea of $GOPATH, especially on Windows. Haven’t tried it since. Hope lots of this change to make the language more welcoming for Newcomers to the language.

If $GOPATH was your biggest complaint, now may be a good time to give it another look. As of 1.11, there's an experimental feature called go modules that lets you avoid using GOPATH. I believe it's going to be non-experimental starting in 1.12.

That's terrific news! GOPATH and the file system conventions are horrible for me as well. It forces me to break my personal conventions and workflow that I use for every other language. I avoid using go for new projects now because it got to be so annoying and disruptive (a somewhat shallow reason, I know).

Re: Go 2, here we come

#34

Post by a_c_s »

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…

This was one thing COBOL got right: built in support for a DECIMAL data type.

Re: Go 2, here we come

#36

Post by rootbear »

jsmith45 wrote: post #18
jonathanstrange wrote: post #7

I hope they keep the changes reasonable and do not introduce any breaking changes. I like the language as it is now and I'm very productive in it.

Well for the first round they are looking at: 1. Allowing generalized unicode identifiers. That is hardly likely to break anything except possibly some crazy edge cases that dont happen in real code. 2. Binary integer literals. (unlikely to break things) 3. allowing seperating groups of digits in a number with _ like 1_000_000 (unlikely to break anything) 4. Permit signed integers as shift counts (no need to cast ant…

I would like to see more Unicode operators, at least as options. It's crazy that we still use * for × in 2018. Yes, I know that most US keyboards don't have that symbol but that's a solvable problem. I use an international layout on my Linux systems and can type it easily.

Also, I prefer using ' for the thousands separator and was happy when C++ adopted it. It's less visually intrusive, especially with variable width fonts, and some calculators even use apostrophe. Also, in identifiers, the underscore has semantic meaning: foo_bar is different from foobar. But 1'234'567 is meant to be identical to 1234567, so underscore isn't the best choice.

Re: Go 2, here we come

#37

Post by freedomben »

glenrivard wrote: post #4

Big fan of both Go and also Rust. It is time we move beyond C and C++

I apologize for asking a question that will likely lead to a flame war regardless of your answer, but which is better? I've used Go for a while for certain apps, but as a primarily functional programmer I find my way of thinking often clashes with the language (and I also don't like the verbosity).

So, do you do functional programming, and is Rust a better (with all the subjectivity that word implies) language than Go?

Re: Go 2, here we come

#38

Post by mempko »

rjplatte wrote: post #6

I'll be very sad if this goes the way of Perl 6

Perl6 is amazing! Yes it took a while. Yes it doesn't have the same recognition as perl 5. Yes it's crazy. But it's crazy in fun sort of way.

Re: Go 2, here we come

#40

Post by simias »

mikepurvis wrote: post #16
rjplatte wrote: post #6

I'll be very sad if this goes the way of Perl 6

At least Perl 6 is DOA and there's little confusion about it. The fiasco that was Python 3 was much worse for how drawn out it was.

By the time the confusion about Perl 6 being DOA subsided (which still hasn't happened for some enthusiasts) Perl 5 was seriously damaged and it never recovered since.

Python 3 took a lot of time to take over but it seems that they're finally leaving Python 2 behind and the language is still extremely popular.

Post reply on HN