←back to thread

Go subtleties

(harrisoncramer.me)
234 points darccio | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.222s | source
Show context
DarkNova6 ◴[] No.45667140[source]
As somebody who only views Go from a distance, I see this list as a combination of „what‘s the big deal?“ and „please don‘t“.
replies(2): >>45667192 #>>45672374 #
OvervCW ◴[] No.45667192[source]
I'm amused by posts like this because it shows that Go is finally slowly moving away from being an unergonomically simplistic language (its original USP?) to adopt features a modern language should have had all along.

My experience developing in it always gave me the impression that the designers of the language looked at C and thought "all this is missing is garbage collection and then we'll have the perfect language".

I feel like a large amount of the feeling of productivity developers get from writing Go code originates from their sheer LOC output due to having to reproduce what other languages can do in just a few lines thanks to proper language & standard library features.

replies(8): >>45667300 #>>45667358 #>>45667372 #>>45667409 #>>45667468 #>>45667838 #>>45668913 #>>45675568 #
eptcyka ◴[] No.45667300[source]
How is the boxed interface problem enabling better ergonomics for Go? I find that most quirks listed here are not making the language any better.
replies(1): >>45667352 #
1. OvervCW ◴[] No.45667352[source]
In this specific blog post I suppose only "Ranging Directly over Integers" counts, but I was more generally referring to the introduction of features like generics.