←back to thread

Go subtleties

(harrisoncramer.me)
235 points darccio | 3 comments | 13 Oct 25 07:42 UTC | HN request time: 0.739s | source
Show context
DarkNova6 ◴[22 Oct 25 10:35 UTC] 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 ◴[22 Oct 25 10:43 UTC] 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 #
1. petralithic ◴[22 Oct 25 11:24 UTC] No.45667468[source]▶
More like, let's throw away the last 75 years of programming language theory advances, only to rediscover them again ourselves, with much hardship.
replies(1): >>45668392 #
2. DarkNova6 ◴[22 Oct 25 12:58 UTC] No.45668392[source]▶
Sounds Like „Tell me about Generics in Go without telling me about Generics in Go“
replies(1): >>45668723 #
3. OvervCW ◴[22 Oct 25 13:21 UTC] No.45668723[source]▶
No need to talk about generics when we can talk about something simple like the inability to implement type safe enums in Go.