←back to thread

Go is still not good

(blog.habets.se)
644 points ustad | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
blixt ◴[] No.44983245[source]
I've been using Go more or less in every full-time job I've had since pre-1.0. It's simple for people on the team to pick up the basics, it generally chugs along (I'm rarely worried about updating to latest version of Go), it has most useful things built in, it compiles fast. Concurrency is tricky but if you spend some time with it, it's nice to express data flow in Go. The type system is most of the time very convenient, if sometimes a bit verbose. Just all-around a trusty tool in the belt.

But I can't help but agree with a lot of points in this article. Go was designed by some old-school folks that maybe stuck a bit too hard to their principles, losing sight of the practical conveniences. That said, it's a _feeling_ I have, and maybe Go would be much worse if it had solved all these quirks. To be fair, I see more leniency in fixing quirks in the last few years, like at some point I didn't think we'd ever see generics, or custom iterators, etc.

The points about RAM and portability seem mostly like personal grievances though. If it was better, that would be nice, of course. But the GC in Go is very unlikely to cause issues in most programs even at very large scale, and it's not that hard to debug. And Go runs on most platforms anyone could ever wish to ship their software on.

But yeah the whole error / nil situation still bothers me. I find myself wishing for Result[Ok, Err] and Optional[T] quite often.

replies(18): >>44983384 #>>44983427 #>>44983465 #>>44983479 #>>44983531 #>>44983616 #>>44983802 #>>44983872 #>>44984433 #>>44985251 #>>44985721 #>>44985839 #>>44986166 #>>44987302 #>>44987396 #>>45002271 #>>45002492 #>>45018751 #
traceroute66 ◴[] No.44983465[source]
> Just all-around a trusty tool in the belt

I agree.

The Go std-lib is fantastic.

Also no dependency-hell with Go, unlike with Python. Just ship an oven-ready binary.

And what's the alternative ?

Java ? Licensing sagas requiring the use of divergent forks. Plus Go is easier to work with, perhaps especially for server-side deployments.

Zig ? Rust ? Complex learning curve. And having to choose e.g. Rust crates re-introduces dependency hell and the potential for supply-chain attacks.

replies(8): >>44983495 #>>44983537 #>>44983543 #>>44983603 #>>44983770 #>>44985640 #>>44985845 #>>44988378 #
theshrike79 ◴[] No.44983495[source]
uv + the new way of adding the required packages in the comments is pretty good.

you can go `uv run script.py` and it'll automatically fetch the libraries and run the script in a virtual environment.

Still no match for Go though, shipping a single cross-compiled binary is a joy. And with a bit of trickery you can even bundle in your whole static website in it :) Works great when you're building business logic with a simple UI on top.

replies(3): >>44983682 #>>44983728 #>>44984667 #
1. traceroute66 ◴[] No.44983728{3}[source]
> you can go `uv run script.py` and it'll automatically fetch the libraries and run the script in a virtual environment.

Yeah, but you still have to install `uv` as a pre-requisite.

And you still end up with a virtual environment full of dependency hell.

And then of course we all remember that whole messy era when Python 2 transitioned to Python 3, and then deferred it, and deferred it again....

You make a fair point, of course it is technically possible to make it (slightly) "cleaner". But I'll still take the Go binary thanks. ;-)

replies(1): >>44985957 #
2. rsyring ◴[] No.44985957[source]
Installing uv is a requirement and incredibly easy.

No, there is no dependency hell in the venv.

Python 2 to 3: are you really still kicking that horse? It's dead...please move on.