←back to thread

Go is still not good

(blog.habets.se)
644 points ustad | 1 comments | 22 Aug 25 09:25 UTC | HN request time: 0.231s | source
Show context
blixt ◴[22 Aug 25 11:35 UTC] 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 ◴[22 Aug 25 11:56 UTC] 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 #
koakuma-chan ◴[22 Aug 25 12:04 UTC] No.44983490[source]▶
> What if the file name is not valid UTF-8

Nothing? Neither Go nor the OS require file names to be UTF-8, I believe

replies(3): >>44983611 #>>44983702 #>>44985411 #
johncolanduoni ◴[22 Aug 25 12:27 UTC] No.44983702[source]▶
Well, Windows is an odd beast when 8-bit file names are used. If done naively, you can’t express all valid filenames with even broken UTF-8 and non-valid-Unicode filenames cannot be encoded to UTF-8 without loss or some weird convention.

You can do something like WTF-8 (not a misspelling, alas) to make it bidirectional. Rust does this under the hood but doesn’t expose the internal representation.

replies(2): >>44985212 #>>44985281 #
jstimpfle ◴[22 Aug 25 14:43 UTC] No.44985281[source]▶
What do you mean by "when 8-bit filenames are used"? Do you mean the -A APIs, like CreateFileA()? Those do not take UTF-8, mind you -- unless you are using a relatively recent version of Windows that allows you to run your process with a UTF-8 codepage.

In general, Windows filenames are Unicode and you can always express those filenames by using the -W APIs (like CreateFileW()).

replies(2): >>44985436 #>>44991617 #
1. johncolanduoni ◴[23 Aug 25 00:15 UTC] No.44991617[source]▶
Windows filenames in the W APIs are 16-bit (which the A APIs essentially wrap with conversions to the active old-school codepage), and are normally well formed UTF-16. But they aren’t required to be - NTFS itself only cares about 0x0000 and 0x005C (backslash) I believe, and all layers of the stack accept invalid UTF-16 surrogates. Don’t get me started on the normal Win32 path processing (Unicode normalization, “COM” is still a special file, etc.), some of which can be bypassed with the “\\?\” prefix when in NTFS.

The upshot is that since the values aren’t always UTF-16, there’s no canonical way to convert them to single byte strings such that valid UTF-16 gets turned into valid UTF-8 but the rest can still be roundtripped. That’s what bastardized encodings like WTF-8 solve. The Rust Path API is the best take on this I’ve seen that doesn’t choke on bad Unicode.