Golang Concurrency Design Considered Harmful
1–8 of 8 posts
Re: Golang Concurrency Design Considered Harmful
#2I love how everyone can write a 'Considered Harmful' headline by figuring out something along the line of "I don't like it, therefore it must be bad, therefore I consider it harmful".
It's time to stop. This stopped being funny months ago.
Re: Golang Concurrency Design Considered Harmful
#3'Considered Harmful' Headlines Considered Harmful I love how everyone can write a 'Considered Harmful' headline by figuring out something along the line of "I don't like it, therefore it must be bad, therefore I consider it harmful". It's time to stop. This stopped being funny months ago.
Re: Golang Concurrency Design Considered Harmful
#42) Don't use "considered harmful" so much; it is considered harmful.
Re: Golang Concurrency Design Considered Harmful
#5'Considered Harmful' Headlines Considered Harmful I love how everyone can write a 'Considered Harmful' headline by figuring out something along the line of "I don't like it, therefore it must be bad, therefore I consider it harmful". It's time to stop. This stopped being funny months ago.
Re: Golang Concurrency Design Considered Harmful
#6Re: Golang Concurrency Design Considered Harmful
#7Re: Golang Concurrency Design Considered Harmful
#8exacube's comment below, as well as Ivan's on medium sum it up well. "Using channels in the simple cases where mutexes are just fine is a known gotcha for newcomers, discoverring Go concurrency model. But it’s well described in the official Wiki (MutexOrChannel), in the Effective Go on official Golang website, there are numeorus talks, it’s even in Go Proverbs: Channels orchestrate; mutexes serialize!"