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

I Want Off Mr. Golang's Wild Ride

fasterthanli.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 508 posts

Re: I Want Off Mr. Golang's Wild Ride

#461

Post by Tuna-Fish »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #459
Tuna-Fish wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They didn't think they knew enough about CJKV to make that call, and so instead asked pre-eminent scholars from major Chinese, Japanese and Korean universities, and they replied that 21k was going to be enough. The reason they thought that they could fit Chinese into so few letters was that at the time, the CPC supported academics who wanted to reform Chinese towards fewer letters. Not long after, views about traditi…

The current policy seems to be to add characters to Unicode even if nobody uses them any more. Is that a complete flip from what it used to be? Because I feel like that's the only way character reform would have mattered.

Yes. The current policy is made possibly by the adoption of UCS-2 and UTF-8, which expanded the amount of representable characters from 64k to >1M, of which only 10% are in use.

Re: I Want Off Mr. Golang's Wild Ride

#462

Post by ric2b »

strbean wrote: post #350
hope-striker wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is the most common definition of strong typing, and below it an assertion that "Smalltalk, Perl, Ruby, Python, and Self are all strongly typed". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_and_weak_typing#Implici...

That is quite a disingenuous quote... the actual content is: > Smalltalk, Perl, Ruby, Python, and Self are all "strongly typed" in the sense that typing errors are prevented at runtime and they do little implicit type conversion, but these languages make no use of static type checking: the compiler does not check or enforce type constraint rules. The term duck typing is now used to describe the dynamic typing paradig…

Do you have an example of Python doing implicit type conversion?

Re: I Want Off Mr. Golang's Wild Ride

#463

Post by jstimpfle »

Thaxll wrote: post #262
hajile wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Erlang is a stable language that has been around for a long time (almost 35 years now). It's used for way more mission-critical code than golang is ever likely to be used for. It's weird syntax and performance tradeoffs are very well known, but you still won't see anywhere near the number of complaints that you see against golang.

Erlang is less and less used in telecoms and it's the only place if was really used, lot of things have switch to C/C++/Java. As for the reason why it has less complains it's pretty simple no one uses Erlang and it's a niche, it's not a generic purpose language. I can't even tell a single known application or library written in Erlang.

ejabberd is one that I had installed at some point.

Re: I Want Off Mr. Golang's Wild Ride

#464

Post by [deleted] »

pjmlp wrote: post #442
Thaxll wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Erlang is less and less used in telecoms and it's the only place if was really used, lot of things have switch to C/C++/Java. As for the reason why it has less complains it's pretty simple no one uses Erlang and it's a niche, it's not a generic purpose language. I can't even tell a single known application or library written in Erlang.

Just like Go only matters mostly to Docker and K8s shops.

[deleted]

Re: I Want Off Mr. Golang's Wild Ride

#465

Post by dilap »

steveklabnik wrote: post #371
steveklabnik wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not an identical translation, the identical Rust would be fn main() { let mut x = 1; x = "foo"; } which indeed fails to compile with a type error. (That being said there is a conflation of static/dynamic and weak/strong going on in this thread, as there always is in these kinds of discussions.)

I was incorrect here! I don't know Python as well as I thought. Thanks for all the discusison folks.

I still think you're correct, actually!

Cf. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22448289

Re: I Want Off Mr. Golang's Wild Ride

#466

Post by rictic »

voldacar wrote: post #333
thedance wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There aren't any abstractions in any language or library that don't leak everything about what they are trying to hide as well as everything about their own implementation. That's just life. It's impossible to hide complexity. Whatever wraps one thing will be strictly more complex than the wrapped thing was.

heh. someone hasnt used a monad.

There is no way to avoid leaking implementation details, it's just a matter of how much you leak. Even monads leak their performance characteristics.

Re: I Want Off Mr. Golang's Wild Ride

#467

Post by talideon »

jjuel wrote: post #50
umvi wrote: post #2

Maybe I'm a zealot, but I don't really consider "doesn't work as well on windows" a con of a language. C# is (or at least used to be) utter garbage on Linux compared to Windows. I don't hold that against C#, but rather recognize that Linux/Windows are very different, and that compiler maintenance and development is non-trivial (and obviously Microsoft is going to prioritize Windows). This article is basically a rant…

But you knew C# was Windows only. Go was always touted as a cross platform solution due to statically compiled binaries. If said binaries have issues on Windows due to design decisions it seems like a language fault.

I don't think Go was ever really touted as cross-platform, beyond not having to deal with dynamic linking hell. After all, I can't take a random binary built by the Go toolchain for Linux and run it on FreeBSD, MacOS, or Solaris. The only portability gain you get from static linking and the only one Go was ever aiming for was across versions and distributions of the OS.

Re: I Want Off Mr. Golang's Wild Ride

#468

Post by [deleted] »

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #461
Dylan16807 wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current policy seems to be to add characters to Unicode even if nobody uses them any more. Is that a complete flip from what it used to be? Because I feel like that's the only way character reform would have mattered.

Yes. The current policy is made possibly by the adoption of UCS-2 and UTF-8, which expanded the amount of representable characters from 64k to >1M, of which only 10% are in use.

[deleted]

Re: I Want Off Mr. Golang's Wild Ride

#469

Post by dwohnitmok »

pjmlp wrote: post #434
dwohnitmok wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah... but checked exceptions are controversial within the Java community to say the least. Some codebases eschew checked exceptions altogether, rewrapping any checked exceptions they find. This is in contrast to how sharp of a divide the community observes around Error vs Exception. In practice there's a lot of Java code that collapses "internal" and "external" errors into unchecked exceptions.

The blame Java gets for checked exceptions its unfair. Firstly, CLU and C++ were there first, so the language designers were building on something that they though was a trend that would carry on. Most never having learned how checked exceptions were done in CLU and C++, blame Java for them. Then even though it is more convenient to work without them, I do miss in other languages, because developers hate documentatio…

I mean personally I happen to agree that Java's checked exceptions represent a reasonable experiment, although I think they suffer from low-level problems, namely the way they interact with lambdas, the way they're at odds with the community's interface-happy habits, and the self-inflicted tension between whether something should be checked or unchecked (should an out of bounds exception on a dynamically sized array be checked or unchecked? It doesn't seem morally all that different from whether a file exists or not).

But language features exist within the programming community that uses them and on codebases where even if you go to the trouble of threading through all checked exceptions underlying code still blows up under you with what should be checked exceptions (which is all production codebases I've ever seen), it quickly becomes an uphill battle to convince team members to use checked exceptions.

Re: I Want Off Mr. Golang's Wild Ride

#470

Post by pmarreck »

dnr wrote: post #335
pmarreck wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you were using Go for those four years, you'd also see very little of the criticisms regularly leveled at Go. That's bullshit. When I worked in the Ruby on Rails space, I saw critisms quite often... for example of the "one size fits all" way-too-large-surface-area library design (see: ActiveSupport) or the "fat model" design trend at the time... I even PRODUCED some of these criticisms myself. Heck, the bug that…

I think you might be reading an unintended meaning into that sentence. I'm talking about the experience of using Go vs. what people write about it, not about your experiences with other languages (which I have no intention of invalidating). I was pointing out that sometimes one can get a skewed perspective of the typical experience by reading blog posts and things (which by definition are written by the more vocal me…

Fair enough.

And truth be told, a lot of the issues I encountered in the languages I mentioned were from other people’s flawed code designs, not my own.

Post reply on HN