[deleted]
is this from looking at their jobs page? because usually those 'requirements' are just guidelines to make sure the people applying know their stuff, and if you contact the company it turns out they're a little more flexible.
Go at SoundCloud
61–70 of 112 posts
Re: Go at SoundCloud
#62Why can't people just be satisfied with Ruby or Python...
Re: Go at SoundCloud
#63Why can't people just be satisfied with Ruby or Python...
Because this is how progress happens. You could have equally asked about Ruby, why can't people be satisfied with Perl and PHP?
Why would this bother you that they are trying new things and learning?
Re: Go at SoundCloud
#64Why can't people just be satisfied with Ruby or Python...
would that make your day?
Re: Go at SoundCloud
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
Opertor overloading is really horrible. By reading the code "foo + bar" you can't know what is really doing internally. He is talking about operator (+-*=[]&) overloading. Not method overloading.
And how do you know what add(foo, bar) does internally?
add(foo, bar) isn't any clearer than foo + bar, but usually an overloaded operator doesn't correspond to "add".
For example, in Javascript: "Hello" + " " + "World!". What the operator there is doing is concatenating the strings, so if you had a method to do it you wouldn't call it add - you'd call it concat.
Re: Go at SoundCloud
#66I'm still a bit of a novice, could someone elaborate on what he means by operator overloading being "problem creating?" I thought that was one of the main, 'core' concepts of OOP. Inheritance, and polymorphism. How would you make something like a GUI without being able to specialize classes by overriding certain methods? Have I misunderstood his point?
Opertor overloading is really horrible. By reading the code "foo + bar" you can't know what is really doing internally. He is talking about operator (+-*=[]&) overloading. Not method overloading.
I wish I could agree, but experience has shown that not having operator overloading makes (a) operating polymorphically over different number types and (b) creating new number types (decimals, bigints, etc.) really awkward. The former is much of the reason we had to add it to Rust. We have matrices that can operate over any numeric type T that implements the basic operations (so we can write matrix math once and have it work on 32-bit floats and 64-bit floats; this is important for speed vs. precision for browsers vs. scientific computing), but we couldn't put an addition operator in the Num interface, so we had to make "add", "sub", etc. methods. The result made our matrix math operations nigh-unreadable.
Re: Go at SoundCloud
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Opertor overloading is really horrible. By reading the code "foo + bar" you can't know what is really doing internally. He is talking about operator (+-*=[]&) overloading. Not method overloading.
And how do you know what add(foo, bar) does internally?
You are missing the point. You might not know exactly what add() does internally but "+" only gives you a 1 character description, requiring you to know, or assume behaviour of the terms being added. By using a function name instead, you have far more opportunity to describe more clearly what actually is going to happen, requiring less assumption which as we know is the mother of ....
Re: Go at SoundCloud
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course, Go itself is completely unsearchable, so you always have to search for Golang, which means that thee mut be hundreds of pages that get missed.
And "C" or "D" are searchable? Or "Java" (island, coffee) or "C#" (musical scale)? Or "Basic" (fundamental)? Or "Python" (snake) or "Ruby" (gemstone)? Or "Lisp" (speech impediment)? Or "Pascal" (French mathematician, SI unit and general given name)? Or "Smalltalk" (informal conversation)? Or "Logo" (emblem)? Or "Lua" (Portuguese word for moon)? ...
In my humble opinion, in the vast majority of cases, yes. Because " C ", " D ", " C# " should be easier for search engines to disambiguate (at least working with Lucene, it is, and I imagine Google etc are similar-ish).
As for Java, Python the context in the page likely to point to its intended audience (and it helps they have been around for ages etc). Otoh, " go " is likely to be used in a lot of literature, including other programming related texts.
Try searching for something with clojure, and then try go -- the quality of results is usually substantially different, and my unsubstantiated hunch is that not all of it has to do with lack of go-related content.
Seems to be getting better though..
Re: Go at SoundCloud
#69What sort of development environment are others here using for go (if using it at all, of course) ? I've had reasonably good experience with the go-mode in emacs.
I'm one of the project owners on the GoClipse project. I do a lot of polyglot development (Java, Javascript, C, Go, & a little Python). I've used and liked vim, Sublime w/ GoSublime, and GoClipse. All with gocode. I have a hard time escaping Eclipse, in general, because of my skill profile. It kind of unifies the experience.
http://code.google.com/p/goclipse/ https://github.com/nsf/gocode
Re: Go at SoundCloud
#70What sort of development environment are others here using for go (if using it at all, of course) ? I've had reasonably good experience with the go-mode in emacs.
I'm using vim with the vim plugins that come in go/misc/vim. I use :Import and :Drop for adding and removing imports, and :Fmt to run gofmt in vim. I also have a git pre-commit hook that runs gofmt.
Whoah. I had a few vim configs from a while back, but hadn't checked for anything new. Thanks! :Fmt, :Import/:Drop, and :Godoc are glorious.