The example could have been simplified:
func abs(x Top) Top {
switch v := x.(type) {
case int32:
if v Leaving Go
31–40 of 220 posts
Re: Leaving Go
#32If you're looking for a language that will enable "bottom-up development", where you gradually define, in Paul Graham On Lisp style, a language optimized for your problem domain, Golang is not the language for you. Similarly, if you're looking for a language that will read and write like a specification for your problem domain, so that writing your program has the side effect of doing half the work of proving your pr…
> the tools Golang misses that are common to other languages (particularly, REPLs
A quick search for Go REPLs gave me many results, e.g. https://github.com/rocky/go-fish "Yet another Go REPL"
Re: Leaving Go
#33If you're looking for a language that will enable "bottom-up development", where you gradually define, in Paul Graham On Lisp style, a language optimized for your problem domain, Golang is not the language for you. Similarly, if you're looking for a language that will read and write like a specification for your problem domain, so that writing your program has the side effect of doing half the work of proving your pr…
[deleted]
Re: Leaving Go
#34The agreeableness of Python is the reason I settled on it after experience with a bunch of other languages. I was starting to find software engineering to be a chore and was losing interest in it until I started using Python. No language is best at everything, and all the ways python isn't the best have been worked around without much bother. Go did not strike me as a language I would enjoy writing, despite the stren…
Frankly python is good enough for most things. It's not perfect but it's one of these languages you can really use for anything(like java). I'm not fan of the syntax though,I prefer ruby's(ruby is not for "everything" unfortunatly). I've seen insane stuff done in python (3d games,gui apps,complex network tools...) running quite well on my old mac.
Go is relevant where you want pretty good performances and concurrency with low memory footprint(unlike java) ,without using C/C++ and threads. But it's clearly not for everything.
Re: Leaving Go
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Julia is not fun. We expect it to be fun, like python, but it's not.
Can you elaborate why?
I was interested until I discovered Julia doesn't have a useful form of OOP inheritance. Ok, you don't always need it, but for some things it's indispensable (e.g. using widget/window systems).
Re: Leaving Go
#36I think people gave Go a lot of credit just because it was designed at Google. People have high respect for Google engineers and so they assume what Googlers have designed must be flawless. So they take for granted ideas like lack of exceptions or lack of operators' overloading being a good thing, even though I'm quite sure they would be quick to criticize such BS if that was a feature in a language not coming from Google. But, in the long run, the language must defend itself on its own, without the authority of people/organization behind it.
Re: Leaving Go
#37If you're looking for a language that will enable "bottom-up development", where you gradually define, in Paul Graham On Lisp style, a language optimized for your problem domain, Golang is not the language for you. Similarly, if you're looking for a language that will read and write like a specification for your problem domain, so that writing your program has the side effect of doing half the work of proving your pr…
> Systems C programmers I don't know many (TBH none) c programmers that likes or actually uses go. The thing is that as for c++ if you are still writing in c is just for few reasons: portability (in terms of embedding your library) and speed. Especially the former seems very important. EDIT: I know => I know personally or I follow.
Does Ken count as a Systems C programmer?
Most of the systems C programmers I know, who admittedly work on large distributed systems, like Go.
Re: Leaving Go
#38If you're looking for a language that will enable "bottom-up development", where you gradually define, in Paul Graham On Lisp style, a language optimized for your problem domain, Golang is not the language for you. Similarly, if you're looking for a language that will read and write like a specification for your problem domain, so that writing your program has the side effect of doing half the work of proving your pr…
> Systems C programmers I don't know many (TBH none) c programmers that likes or actually uses go. The thing is that as for c++ if you are still writing in c is just for few reasons: portability (in terms of embedding your library) and speed. Especially the former seems very important. EDIT: I know => I know personally or I follow.
> I don't know many (TBH none) c programmers that likes or actually uses go.
I'll give you two, Rob Pike and Ken Thompson. Ha! :)
Re: Leaving Go
#39> I’ve been using Go since November and I’ve decided that it’s time to give it up for my hobby projects. I’d still be happy to use it professionally, but I find that programming in Go isn’t “fun” in the same way that Python, Haskell, or Lisp is. I can't leave go, but indeed I think absolutely the same. The thing is that GO was designed to replace c++ thing that absolutely failed. So we have a python/ruby replacement…
Go wasn't designed to replace C++, Go was designed to replace C++ at Google. And it totally succeeded at that, given the list of critical infrastructure at Google where Go is used, and in some cases has replaced existing C++ implementations.
Re: Leaving Go
#40If you're looking for a language that will enable "bottom-up development", where you gradually define, in Paul Graham On Lisp style, a language optimized for your problem domain, Golang is not the language for you. Similarly, if you're looking for a language that will read and write like a specification for your problem domain, so that writing your program has the side effect of doing half the work of proving your pr…
> Systems C programmers I don't know many (TBH none) c programmers that likes or actually uses go. The thing is that as for c++ if you are still writing in c is just for few reasons: portability (in terms of embedding your library) and speed. Especially the former seems very important. EDIT: I know => I know personally or I follow.
The main reason why I used C over C++ was C's simplicity (actually C++'s complexity).