←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 #
xyzzyz ◴[] No.44983427[source]
Go was designed by some old-school folks that maybe stuck a bit too hard to their principles, losing sight of the practical conveniences.

I'd say that it's entirely the other way around: they stuck to the practical convenience of solving the problem that they had in front of them, quickly, instead of analyzing the problem from the first principles, and solving the problem correctly (or using a solution that was Not Invented Here).

Go's filesystem API is the perfect example. You need to open files? Great, we'll create

  func Open(name string) (*File, error)
function, you can open files now, done. What if the file name is not valid UTF-8, though? Who cares, hasn't happen to me in the first 5 years I used Go.
replies(10): >>44983477 #>>44983490 #>>44983605 #>>44984231 #>>44984419 #>>44985099 #>>44985582 #>>44985985 #>>44988513 #>>44993106 #
stouset ◴[] No.44985985[source]
[flagged]
replies(4): >>44986608 #>>44986671 #>>44987464 #>>44995941 #
1. blibble ◴[] No.44986608[source]
> Golang makes it easy to do the dumb, wrong, incorrect thing that looks like it works 99.7% of the time. How can that be wrong? It works in almost all cases!

my favorite example of this was the go authors refusing to add monotonic time into the standard library because they confidently misunderstood its necessity

(presumably because clocks at google don't ever step)

then after some huge outages (due to leap seconds) they finally added it

now the libraries are a complete a mess because the original clock/time abstractions weren't built with the concept of multiple clocks

and every go program written is littered with terrible bugs due to use of the wrong clock

https://github.com/golang/go/issues/12914 (https://github.com/golang/go/issues/12914#issuecomment-15075... might qualify for the worst comment ever)

replies(1): >>44990666 #
2. 0cf8612b2e1e ◴[] No.44990666[source]
This issue is probably my favorite Goism. Real issue identified and the feedback is, “You shouldn’t run hardware that way. Run servers like Google does without time jumping.” Similar with the original stance to code versioning. Just run a monorepo!