61–70 of 296 posts
I really like the engineering principles in general that the Go team uses, however, I just don't like Go. That isn't meant as a slight or anything other than simply my opinion. That said, I really like the idea of a simple language based on the sort of principles demonstrated here. The runtime seems really nice, I just wish I liked the language better (IMO: not expressive enough, needs better error handling, needs mu…
It is probably a bit misleading when so many say: 'golang is easy', it is not, it is as difficult as Java or other language, probably easier than c++ and rust, but definitely not an easy language. it makes great sense for network with concurrency, not so with real time or low resource devices to me.
I always found languages which require you to always remember to manually call destructors to be quite hard, be they C or Go or JavaScript, when the system has lots of moving parts and performance is a concern. A single mistake and you're leaking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is pretty much exactly how I feel. I have great respect for the Go team. I broadly agree with their design philosophy. I think CSP is a great theory for concurrency. And I just don’t really like writing Go. I don’t hate it, but I feel like I have to either fight the language or just repeat myself an awful lot. Honestly, I suspect the deficiency is on my end. Perhaps I’ve just spent too much time with Lisp and ha…
I don't like _writing_ go, but I also don't hate reading & _debugging_ it. I love writing lisp, but I hate reading & debugging lisp.
There's a Go code base that a friend and I first wrote 5 years ago and we incrementally update it as we find small bugs because of a system it interacts with that changes. We usually touch it once every quarter. I've had no trouble re-reading the code base and keeping it up-to-date. I can't say the same for a lot of other code bases I've worked in.
I really like the engineering principles in general that the Go team uses, however, I just don't like Go. That isn't meant as a slight or anything other than simply my opinion. That said, I really like the idea of a simple language based on the sort of principles demonstrated here. The runtime seems really nice, I just wish I liked the language better (IMO: not expressive enough, needs better error handling, needs mu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In the end I think if someone were to write a slightly simpler version of Rust with the Go runtime it might be pretty neat. OCaml kind of gives you that, but the dev experience isn't as good as Rust or Go in my opinion. Still, I enjoy it a lot, more than Go or Rust.
Agreed - I really like OCaml. Unfortunately it isn't popular enough to get tons of ecosystem love, so I could never find the libraries I need. I'd be pretty happy if it got more popular. Maybe the new multicore work will help.
It does have some unique ecosystem elements such as Coq, WhyML, Mirage, etc. But common components could be definitely improved.
Not trying to be inflammatory but has the pclntab taking ~30% for binary size been fixed yet? IMO it's a pretty severe design choice.
No one really care about binary size increase , especially because you can run a Go binary in a docker image with 0 dependencies ( scratch image ) which has a very small size.
After being bitten by the overhead of Go’s GC, we stopped using it and went back to time-tested C++.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always found languages which require you to always remember to manually call destructors to be quite hard, be they C or Go or JavaScript, when the system has lots of moving parts and performance is a concern. A single mistake and you're leaking.
Go doesn’t require you to call a destructor
Defer helps but some true lexical scoping might be nicer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah that seems to be the issue some CockroachDB guy complained about. I don't think its high priority for Go team.
The CockroachDB guy didn't understand what he was doing. There's a refute from Russ Cox here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26834128
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is pretty much exactly how I feel. I have great respect for the Go team. I broadly agree with their design philosophy. I think CSP is a great theory for concurrency. And I just don’t really like writing Go. I don’t hate it, but I feel like I have to either fight the language or just repeat myself an awful lot. Honestly, I suspect the deficiency is on my end. Perhaps I’ve just spent too much time with Lisp and ha…
It's OK to have ergonomic opinions about languages! In scriptingland, I find Python abhorrent. Ruby fits my brain like a glove (the core language, not Rails). Doesn't indicate anything about the quality of the languages or their respective partisans.
We got rid of the getter setter silliness to be in “constructor land.” ( immutable records from Java 17 )
Function are still not first class citizens, but … they have a working visa now. You can shove lambda anywhere.
It’s still awkward to write functional code
Meh. Recently I’ve been really productive with it and I like the sheer boredom and lack of surprises.