I really like the engineering principles in general that the Go team uses, however, I just don't like Go. That isn't meant as a slight or anything other than simply my opinion. That said, I really like the idea of a simple language based on the sort of principles demonstrated here. The runtime seems really nice, I just wish I liked the language better (IMO: not expressive enough, needs better error handling, needs much better enums, needs pattern matching, has error prone C-style 'for', almost everything is statements not expressions, special comments are error prone, has nil pointers, etc.). In the end I think if someone were to write a slightly simpler version of Rust with the Go runtime it might be pretty neat. That said, I don't know what I'd want to drop from Rust so maybe I'm just fantasizing.
I haven't found any issues with expression, so far. I wouldn't use it to write a UI, but for writing networking code or automated tasks I find it perfectly suited to the task.
I appreciate it's error handling. It's burdensome, sure, but it presents almost no additional cognitive load when attempting to reason about control flow.
It essentially has no enums. However, it has a comfortable type system that can wrap primitive types, and you can define methods on those wrapped types. It's serviceable, but not elegant.
I have never been a fan of pattern matching outside of functional languages. The phenomenon I notice in languages that do have it, is the majority of uses cases seem to be a pattern match with two outcomes, one a Some() and the other a None(). It really seems like a more annoying way to write if {} else {}.
It has for, but it also has 'range.' It makes up for a lot.
It has nil pointers, which are just a "zero value." It's not uncommon to make it useful and safer in certain contexts. You can request a lookup in a map that is nil. You can ask for the length of a slice that is nil. You get sensible answers still. There are still footguns, but they're all single barrel.. which is _nicer_.
I don't need a perfect language. Good enough with low cognitive load and amazing cross-compile facilities I'll take any day of the week.
I will agree Rust has a higher "cognitive load", but not if you write it every day. I think Rust might be tough to leave and come back say a year later, but Go admittedly would be easy. That said, having written 50K+ code in both languages, I never want to write Go again. Rust on the other hand is all I want to write now. I do wonder how many people who understand Go's limitations (and work around them as you point out above) have truly given Rust a try (takes a few months - can't be done faster). I can't imagine anyone would want to go back tbh, but maybe I'm wrong.
EDIT: In fairness, there is one thing and exactly one thing I miss about Go: compile times. Rust is simply no competition here, but in trade, it is doing a ton of extra work. Trade offs.
There are two reasons to have match: exhaustiveness and destructuring/pattern matching. I don't think there's an if/else parallel to `match result { Ok(t) => { ... }, Err(e) => { ... } }`
The fact that a `nil` value can be made useful (which, AFAICT, means it won't blow up your program?) is not a good enough reason to include them in the language. Rust can do perfectly useful things with, say, `Option<Vec<T>>`, and it's possible to distinguish between `Some(vec![])` and `None`. If you care to ignore that distinction you're free to do `maybe_vec.map(|v| v.len()).unwrap_or_default()`. But IMO it's much better to tell the compiler to unify different cases (`None` and `Some(empty)`) than to have to work around the compiler's unification of those cases when you don't want it. It's always easier to increase entropy than to decrease it. (P.S.: should the sum of a nil list be 0, or NaN, or...?)
> The phenomenon I notice in languages that do have it, is the majority of uses cases seem to be a pattern match with two outcomes, one a Some() and the other a None(). It really seems like a more annoying way to write if {} else {}.
In Rust you write this type of thing as:
if let Some(name) = order.get_name() {
println!("Order ready for {name}!");
} else {
println!("Order number {} ready!", order.num());
}
So, it's a destructuring pattern match just written as an if-else. Because we did the match here, we can't forget and end up using name when there wasn't one, the variable only exists when it's bound.
We always make this discussion with friends. I don't think every language should tick the boxes the same way.
I also personally like Go a lot. It's filling the gap between C++ and Python for me. If I need something compiled with proper threading support, but C++ would be an overkill, I reach for Go.
Go is designed with a human centric view, IMHO: "Make writing great programs easier rather than design a language with novel/cutting edge features, but with a high cognitive load", and I find it as a noble aim as Rust's guarantees and aspirations.
I understand why people love Rust, but I don't think it's the only one, or the proverbial silver bullet that we finally achieved. Yes, it's nice. Yes, it brings many things to the table, but it's not the final solution for once and for all.
You like Rust? Great, Go for it (unintended pun alert), but I think we need all languages from all paradigms and perspectives.
I find this talk [0] very informative and useful while interacting with other languages and communities. I'm not sharing this with any insinuations towards you, but just find it generally perspective broadening.
If it were Go's design philosophy, it would have allowed unused variables/imports. Those restrictions are there exactly because they help computers, reducing compilation time. The over-focus of compilation time also stems from monorepos being used by Google, whose purpose is also helping computers.
> Go is designed with a human centric view, IMHO: "Make writing great programs easier rather than design a language with novel/cutting edge features, but with a high cognitive load", and I find it as a noble aim as Rust's guarantees and aspirations.
I don’t understand his horrid informal writing style trend. You are clearly not quoting anyone and just providing your own interpretation. So why in the hell are you using quotation marks? In this case you could just ditch the quotation marks altogether since the colon already acts as a separator.
First it would need to add error handling before it could look to improve upon it.
I'm not entirely convinced it should. I spend my days in a variety of other languages that have added error handling in various ways and, in my experience, it always ends up making errors unnecessarily difficult to do deal with. I regularly wish the idioms of those languages recognized errors as being core to your application as any other value, not something to treat differently. Go really got things right for the type of software I write.
But not all software is solving the same problems. There are a lot of programs where you don't need to think about errors; where stopping the world is fine if you encounter one. Go is not at all a good fit for these situations. However, I think it is okay for Go to not try to be all things to all people. We already have plenty of other good languages that serve other niches. Right tool for the job and all that.
Just like Rust, everyone would stop complaining about Go error handling. But they have this absolutist position on syntactic sugar, even for something like this that would make the language that much nicer to look at and work with.
>There are a lot of programs where you don't need to think about errors
What kind of utopian programming job do you have that you don't have to think about errors? An error is not limited to technical issues like packet loss or unable to open socket. Its also "client A attempted to purchase item B which is limited to client C". How do you express this in Go?
I have no idea why people are so opposed to ADTs. Its like sliced bread with butter, or whatever the phrase is. Its not _that_ complicated...is it?
This is pretty much exactly how I feel. I have great respect for the Go team. I broadly agree with their design philosophy. I think CSP is a great theory for concurrency. And I just don’t really like writing Go. I don’t hate it, but I feel like I have to either fight the language or just repeat myself an awful lot.
Honestly, I suspect the deficiency is on my end. Perhaps I’ve just spent too much time with Lisp and have experienced some professional deformation.
It's OK to have ergonomic opinions about languages! In scriptingland, I find Python abhorrent. Ruby fits my brain like a glove (the core language, not Rails). Doesn't indicate anything about the quality of the languages or their respective partisans.
I sorely wish CSP was enforced in any way by Go, but it's not. The only thing which arguably makes Go more "CSP-y" than, say, C++ is that it comes with a decent built-in concurrent queue and some syntax sugar. Goroutines have full mutable access to all the variables in their scope, and lots of Go code ends up being your good old mutex hell -- just more of it, since threads are so easy to create.
I think something way more radical than "C++ threads but with a built-in concurrent queue" is needed. If the default was to share nothing, and any shared memory had to be explicitly shared somehow, that would be a great step in the right direction. Maybe the compiler could even check that explicitly-shared variables are protected by a mutex; something like how Rust mutexes "own" the things they're protecting and you can't access the underlying object without having the lock.
Agreed - I really like OCaml. Unfortunately it isn't popular enough to get tons of ecosystem love, so I could never find the libraries I need. I'd be pretty happy if it got more popular. Maybe the new multicore work will help.
Rust is basically what you get if you start with OCaml, remove the GC, and add enough features to the type system to compensate for that without giving up on safety.
The error handling was a disappointment at first, but in practice it is a lot clearer and more usable than any other kinds of error handling I've tried. It could perhaps do with some syntactic sugar, but it isn't a big issue since IDEs can pick up that slack. After about half a decade of Go I'd say that the error handling is something I've come to like.
"More expressive" in my opinion tends to mean "less readable", but there is some personal bias here. The people I've met during my career who like "more stuff" are usually the younger, less experienced programmers who aren't as concerned about long term viability.
I'm in my fifth decade of programming and my approach is "do more with less". When people want more stuff, for me, it means that I'll be dealing with more cases of people not knowing how all the stuff works. Everyone likes to think they can deal with more cognitive overhead, but mostly people can't.
I'm not sure if pattern matching belongs in a language like Go at all. Admittedly I haven't given it much thought, but it doesn't feel right for what Go aims to be. If you want to do Erlang, do Erlang, but I might be wrong about this.
What's error prone about the for statement? I don't use the C-style for statement all that often as way more than 50% of my for loops are ranging or naked for loops with break/continue/return.
Not having nil tends to lead to having to invent sentinel values all over the place, doesn't it? Is that really better? And since you often end up doing things by value in Go anyway, it isn't like you don't have any choice.
I used to dislike it too, but after being “forced” to use it daily (chose a job thats 100% golang on the backend), you really grow into it. It would be really, really nice to have better error handling and a bit less verbosity all around, but in terms of cost/benefit it still beats any other language I’ve worked with by a fair margin.
To get into it, it might help to start by modifying an existing project, a lot less painful than trying to write something from scratch without being familiar with the idioms.
> That isn't meant as a slight or anything other than simply my opinion.
That's fine, we all have our preferences. I love Python, but I can't stand Ruby. I love Go, but hate C++. I make my living with C#, but won't touch Java.
I agree. It feels a bit like where Java/JVM is at: popular, solid runtime, large community/ecosystem, but Java made some bad choices.
In my opinion: Go needs a Kotlin. First and foremost to do away with implicit nulls (imho the biggest mistake), but here are other things that could be impoved you've already mentioned.
The good thing is that Java is incorporating the proven features of other languages. It has gotten records, pattern matching (better than Kotlin's), and in the latest release, virtual threads with structured concurrency, better than async/await, and also better than golang as it lacks structured concurrency.
Better enums and non-nil types, that would be my wish list for Go. And conditional expressions, if there's one more wish to be granted. There's no need to make it resemble Rust: Go's type system is expressive enough as it is.
> has error prone C-style 'for'
Not really true. It has `for index, elt := range v` to iterate over arrays and maps. It's a pity you can't define your own range, that's true.
I totally agree. After working with it for a while I feel like its best use is in writing CLI tools due to the compiler making it so damn easy to produce statically linked binaries for any platform, backed by an incredibly powerful standard library.
My issue for application and web server development are in the language design as it restricts me in my personal quest to write loosely coupled code that is marinated in unit tests - at least when compared to other languages.
That said I enjoy the language, have learned a lot from it, use Go often (previous day job) and have a gopher plushy - but I am just not a die hard loyalist. There are things about the language that blow others out of the water, but there are significant portions that leave a lot to be desired.
What I have noticed is the language design has inconsistencies and there are lots of exceptions built into the language to get around missing features; features which are sometimes filled in later leaving ambiguity around approaches.
For example, Go uses a nominal type system with the famous exception of interfaces with methods that are structurally evaluated. The issue is interfaces only feature structural type evaluation on the top level, anything nested beyond that is nominal.
So an interface that has a method which returns an interface requires an implementing struct to return the _exact_ interface from that same method.
You can accept a struct where an interface is a parameter but you cannot return a struct where an interface is the return type.
This is useful when building type safe dependency containers, something that makes unit testing much easier.
Instead people just overuse `Context`, prop drill it into everything and cast types at some point when trying to get things from it.
Other examples are the return types from functions. Go didn't have generics initially so a Result[T] wasn't possible - but also exceptions were not possible. Tuples were not allowed by the type system but the language makes an exception for the function return types - fair enough.
Without type parameters and a need for generic basic types like `map`, `slice` and `sync.Map`, the language made an exception for the the primitive types - giving them generics however this is now inconsistent with the current implementation of generics.
Usage of `make()` and the confusion brought on by managing "references" also adds a bit of friction to the language.
Generics are inconsistent as well - for instance you can have a struct with a type parameter but not methods - however you can have functions with type parameters that accept a struct as their first parameter.
The tooling is a little underpowered, the test coverage analysis tool doesn't consider branch coverage, only statement coverage so you can have 100% test coverage reported with only 50% truly covered.
Making mocks requires cumbersome type generation - this is something I am okay with but the types generated have terrible assertion capabilities.
But there are phenomenal things from the language. Packages are a great design choice, module management from git is simple and effective, `range` is chefs kiss, the compiler is beautiful.
I love the idea of goroutines but I'm not blown away by channels. They are fancy iterators with dedicated keywords which I find can clutter things up a little - but they were really cool when Go first came out and we were only just starting to think about how to manage asynchronous concurrency.
"You can accept a struct where an interface is a parameter but you cannot return a struct where an interface is the return type."
Possibly I'm misunderstanding the complaint, but that is because an interface is a fat pointer, so one returns a pointer to a struct implementing the interface.
Rust has set the bar so high that it’s going to be hard for other languages to justify their use.
If I had to make a bet, I’d say Typescript will take over for everything not performance critical and Rust will fit in every spot that either requires high quality assurance or high performance.
Rust users don't even register as a rounding error in the grand scheme of things. Don't get me wrong, I like Rust _the idea_. But to suggest Rust in it's current form, managed by it's current team, will be anything but a niche language for performance and safety critical corner cases is deluding yourself. The vast, vast, vast majority of programming to this day is still maintaining perfectly functional (but old) C++/Java/C/C# code bases. Anything overthrowing those thrones has to be both easy and better. Rust only fills one of these tasks. Go is far more popular because of the lower cognitive load, comparable speed, and relative ease at which you can become productive. Go won't replace Rust and comparing them is wrong. Go will, however, always be more popular than Rust. At least until Rust is adopted and supported by more major companies, used in major roles, and expands beyond it's niche.
Rust is adding new features at the speed of C++/C# which is quite bad imo, it's good a recipe to have different code base / way of doing things in just couple of years apart. Now for Rust there are many things that could be changed, async etc ...
At first I thought this too, but if you look at the actual "features" they are adding they are all more less just smoothing out existing features. There aren't really any major new ones I can't think of that expand the "surface area" of the language. There is just a lot of polish still needed, esp. to things like async, const, etc. and most of the features appearing are about reducing the burden to use existing features.
What exactly has Rust added in recent months or even years? The way I see it most changes in the language are making existing features work more consistently.
I get you want to compare with Go, let have some benchmark. Despite V being new, the difference is quite insignificant for short-lived process in most case. You are more likely use Go for production at this time.
Love go as a platform.. self contained binaries have been a miracle for ops..but have a few big hangups about using the language full time because of the sucky ergonomics.
* No optional/named parameters. Writing a whole function per parameter for function chaining is excessive. This would not be difficult to add to the compiler (i've done it and have seriously considered using the fork) but it seems like the team is just stubborn about adding stuff like this.
* No default struct values. 0 isn't good enough in real world scenarios.. have fun writing BlahInit(...) for everything.
* Would be nice to get the question mark syntax for error handling. Error handling shorthand for if err != nil would also be very welcome.
I love Go too but this does drive me nuts, especially when parsing JSON and wanting to set sane defaults for missing values. Like, for example, booleans that should default to "true".
For that use case, I think that you can assign your defaults before passing your target struct to the unmarshaller.
The unmarshaller will iterate on the json input and set struct fields when json fields are found. This means that struct fields that don't match the json are ignored, and values you have set before will be left as is.
I think if Golang would have been invented a couple of years later it def would have had sum types. But then, Rust probably wouldn’t have had its insane tooling that is most likely inspired by golang
I doubt it. It seems quite apparent that Thompson just wanted to take another stab at creating the next generation in the B -> NB (New B) -> C -> Go family tree. It would have likely been named D if the name wasn't already taken.
Pike slapped his Newsqueak's CSP paradigm on top and the rest is history.
I'm really grateful for everyone who has made Go possible and continues to make it better. Well done language design, extensive standard library, good tooling, and great documentation is something that's almost impossible to find despite there being a multitude of languages.
I am not a fan of new knobs like this. It reminds me of Java where you actually have to think about -xMx blah blah and setting it is a dark art. I would really prefer if we could somehow confer the memory limit from the container environment to go so this could be set intuitively at the container level without mucking about in the go GC internals.
Maybe now, but in the past you'd have to worry about things like running out of PermGen space. There were definitely more knobs than a typical container environment.
I'm sure the goal will always be to be as good as humanly possible out of the box. 99.999% of users will probably never have to think about it. But if your mission-critical application just happens to hit a case which the default behavior handles poorly, would you rather: 1) redesign your system and hope that a different design just happens to not hit the same bad case, or 2) tweak a knob until the GC fits your use case?
I think I'd prefer 2. But 1 will always remain an option I suppose.
I agree that getting a suitable default from the container would be a good idea. It probably requires cooperation from the many different containers out there, though. There might sometimes be more than one process per container, too, which implies some kind of flexbox-like layout algorithm to allocate memory within the container.
And on the other hand, it's a simple flag. They added one memory flag in over a decade. I think they're holding the line on complexity pretty well?
I have been developing in Go for several years and feel like I have seen most it can offer which is quite a lot for backend/networking systems.
Besides its GC implementation that works very well most of the time, it also has simple but strong debugging tools to investigate how well you are handling memory allocation and CPU usage. Enforcing consistent coding style also makes it very easy to read other people's code and quickly contribute.
My suggestion to others is to avoid prematurely optimizing memory usage (e.g. trying to do zero-copy implementations) and always investigate performance via these profiling tools Go offers (e.g. pprof). Very often Golang's compiler or runtime will automatically optimize code that may not seem to allocate optimally.
There are still downsides but some of them are actively worked on:
1. Generics are still lack-luster (... but good enough to start replacing a lot of boilerplate code and will improve later on)
2. Error handling is still tedious (fortunately it seems to be their next big focus), it should take less code-space and have an option of stack-trace
4. Low-level UDP networking is weak (soon to be fixed as they accepted this proposal: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/45886 ), this will become more important as we transition to QUIC protocol
5. CGo (C interop / C FFI) is pretty bad performance-wise compared to other languages, it's OK if it is an I/O operation but anything C interop that requires low latency won't be running great
6. Similar to other languages, nowadays there are growing external dependency trees (e.g. I always wanted to use testcontainers-go to make integration tests easier but man, have you seen the dependency tree you will pull in with that pacakge?), solution in my eyes is flattening and standardizing most commonly used packages but Go in particular is very opinionated regarding what is included in stdlib
The above downsides mostly come from the background of creating distributed data pipelines and certain data collectors/parsers. For building API servers, I keep hearing it is a godsend in its simplicity, so your mileage may vary depending on the business domain you work in.
I would be interested to hear other people's experience with Go, however!
And don't forget, the plugin API has some super strong limitations. I wish that was fixed, otherwise platforms "similar to wordpress" can never become a thing on Go
Actually, folks usually just use gRPC or Yaegi in Go. You can write an SDK for your software that abstracts all of that away for the plugin developer.
See Terraform[0], Traefik[1], or OctoSQL[2].
Though I agree plugins would be welcome, especially for performance reasons, though also to be able to compile and load go code into a running go process (JIT-ish).
If I was going to try to make something "similar to Wordpress" with Go I would replace plugins with optional packages triggered by build flags (or possibly a light codegen step), not an actual dynamic plugin system. The Wordpress model is solved with plugins in PHP (for reasons that were to some degree bad even at the time), but it's not actually "I want to inject some external code into this existing process environment", it's "I want a bespoke N of M features because some Ms are mutually exclusive or have overhead I can't afford".
If you have a language that has a module ecosystem, compiles fast, and generates a single binary, take advantage of that; don't try to reimplement fragile dynamic linking.
I've written plugins in Go. You don't really need to use the plugin package, and you probably shouldn't anyway.
One way I've done it in the past is via sub processes talking via stdin/stdout. Another way I've done it is just via a regular REST API.
You'll never get enough performance for a lot of tasks if you need to pass a lot of data between applications. But depending on your needs it's more than serviceable. The benefit of this is that plugins don't need to be written in Go, as you have a simple interface.
A good example of this is something like LSP. LSP plugins are abundant and each one is written in a different language. VSCode is Typescript, the Go language server is written in Go. Both can speak to eachother fast enough.
Plugins for a compiled binary are just plain hard. Changing the code works better with an interpreted language. Usually you see the software implement it's own interpreter or a scripting language on top to handle this.
It is probably a bit misleading when so many say: 'golang is easy', it is not, it is as difficult as Java or other language, probably easier than c++ and rust, but definitely not an easy language.
it makes great sense for network with concurrency, not so with real time or low resource devices to me.
I always found languages which require you to always remember to manually call destructors to be quite hard, be they C or Go or JavaScript, when the system has lots of moving parts and performance is a concern. A single mistake and you're leaking.
Some very impressive wins here. Makes one wonder how much better things are going to get in the next few years. All without needing to change my programs!
I always thought go needed more GC knobs, good that they added this one and the strong reasoning behind it makes sense. Impressive go has got this far with just one knob!
Readit News
I appreciate it's error handling. It's burdensome, sure, but it presents almost no additional cognitive load when attempting to reason about control flow.
It essentially has no enums. However, it has a comfortable type system that can wrap primitive types, and you can define methods on those wrapped types. It's serviceable, but not elegant.
I have never been a fan of pattern matching outside of functional languages. The phenomenon I notice in languages that do have it, is the majority of uses cases seem to be a pattern match with two outcomes, one a Some() and the other a None(). It really seems like a more annoying way to write if {} else {}.
It has for, but it also has 'range.' It makes up for a lot.
It has nil pointers, which are just a "zero value." It's not uncommon to make it useful and safer in certain contexts. You can request a lookup in a map that is nil. You can ask for the length of a slice that is nil. You get sensible answers still. There are still footguns, but they're all single barrel.. which is _nicer_.
I don't need a perfect language. Good enough with low cognitive load and amazing cross-compile facilities I'll take any day of the week.
EDIT: In fairness, there is one thing and exactly one thing I miss about Go: compile times. Rust is simply no competition here, but in trade, it is doing a ton of extra work. Trade offs.
I wished Go formatter would compress
to Even better would be to extend the syntax to allow But I am Ok with braces.There are two reasons to have match: exhaustiveness and destructuring/pattern matching. I don't think there's an if/else parallel to `match result { Ok(t) => { ... }, Err(e) => { ... } }`
The fact that a `nil` value can be made useful (which, AFAICT, means it won't blow up your program?) is not a good enough reason to include them in the language. Rust can do perfectly useful things with, say, `Option<Vec<T>>`, and it's possible to distinguish between `Some(vec![])` and `None`. If you care to ignore that distinction you're free to do `maybe_vec.map(|v| v.len()).unwrap_or_default()`. But IMO it's much better to tell the compiler to unify different cases (`None` and `Some(empty)`) than to have to work around the compiler's unification of those cases when you don't want it. It's always easier to increase entropy than to decrease it. (P.S.: should the sum of a nil list be 0, or NaN, or...?)
In Rust you write this type of thing as:
So, it's a destructuring pattern match just written as an if-else. Because we did the match here, we can't forget and end up using name when there wasn't one, the variable only exists when it's bound.I also personally like Go a lot. It's filling the gap between C++ and Python for me. If I need something compiled with proper threading support, but C++ would be an overkill, I reach for Go.
Go is designed with a human centric view, IMHO: "Make writing great programs easier rather than design a language with novel/cutting edge features, but with a high cognitive load", and I find it as a noble aim as Rust's guarantees and aspirations.
I understand why people love Rust, but I don't think it's the only one, or the proverbial silver bullet that we finally achieved. Yes, it's nice. Yes, it brings many things to the table, but it's not the final solution for once and for all.
You like Rust? Great, Go for it (unintended pun alert), but I think we need all languages from all paradigms and perspectives.
I find this talk [0] very informative and useful while interacting with other languages and communities. I'm not sharing this with any insinuations towards you, but just find it generally perspective broadening.
[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YX3iRjKj7C0 - What Killed Smalltalk could Kill Ruby.
If it were Go's design philosophy, it would have allowed unused variables/imports. Those restrictions are there exactly because they help computers, reducing compilation time. The over-focus of compilation time also stems from monorepos being used by Google, whose purpose is also helping computers.
I don’t understand his horrid informal writing style trend. You are clearly not quoting anyone and just providing your own interpretation. So why in the hell are you using quotation marks? In this case you could just ditch the quotation marks altogether since the colon already acts as a separator.
First it would need to add error handling before it could look to improve upon it.
I'm not entirely convinced it should. I spend my days in a variety of other languages that have added error handling in various ways and, in my experience, it always ends up making errors unnecessarily difficult to do deal with. I regularly wish the idioms of those languages recognized errors as being core to your application as any other value, not something to treat differently. Go really got things right for the type of software I write.
But not all software is solving the same problems. There are a lot of programs where you don't need to think about errors; where stopping the world is fine if you encounter one. Go is not at all a good fit for these situations. However, I think it is okay for Go to not try to be all things to all people. We already have plenty of other good languages that serve other niches. Right tool for the job and all that.
varFoo, err := GetFoo()
if err != nil {
}Can be written as:
varFoo := GetFoo()?
Just like Rust, everyone would stop complaining about Go error handling. But they have this absolutist position on syntactic sugar, even for something like this that would make the language that much nicer to look at and work with.
What kind of utopian programming job do you have that you don't have to think about errors? An error is not limited to technical issues like packet loss or unable to open socket. Its also "client A attempted to purchase item B which is limited to client C". How do you express this in Go?
I have no idea why people are so opposed to ADTs. Its like sliced bread with butter, or whatever the phrase is. Its not _that_ complicated...is it?
I'm not sure what the better way to do it is tbh.
Honestly, I suspect the deficiency is on my end. Perhaps I’ve just spent too much time with Lisp and have experienced some professional deformation.
I think something way more radical than "C++ threads but with a built-in concurrent queue" is needed. If the default was to share nothing, and any shared memory had to be explicitly shared somehow, that would be a great step in the right direction. Maybe the compiler could even check that explicitly-shared variables are protected by a mutex; something like how Rust mutexes "own" the things they're protecting and you can't access the underlying object without having the lock.
I love writing lisp, but I hate reading & debugging lisp.
OCaml kind of gives you that, but the dev experience isn't as good as Rust or Go in my opinion. Still, I enjoy it a lot, more than Go or Rust.
"More expressive" in my opinion tends to mean "less readable", but there is some personal bias here. The people I've met during my career who like "more stuff" are usually the younger, less experienced programmers who aren't as concerned about long term viability.
I'm in my fifth decade of programming and my approach is "do more with less". When people want more stuff, for me, it means that I'll be dealing with more cases of people not knowing how all the stuff works. Everyone likes to think they can deal with more cognitive overhead, but mostly people can't.
I'm not sure if pattern matching belongs in a language like Go at all. Admittedly I haven't given it much thought, but it doesn't feel right for what Go aims to be. If you want to do Erlang, do Erlang, but I might be wrong about this.
What's error prone about the for statement? I don't use the C-style for statement all that often as way more than 50% of my for loops are ranging or naked for loops with break/continue/return.
Not having nil tends to lead to having to invent sentinel values all over the place, doesn't it? Is that really better? And since you often end up doing things by value in Go anyway, it isn't like you don't have any choice.
To get into it, it might help to start by modifying an existing project, a lot less painful than trying to write something from scratch without being familiar with the idioms.
That's fine, we all have our preferences. I love Python, but I can't stand Ruby. I love Go, but hate C++. I make my living with C#, but won't touch Java.
It's okay. We're not wrong. We're just different.
In my opinion: Go needs a Kotlin. First and foremost to do away with implicit nulls (imho the biggest mistake), but here are other things that could be impoved you've already mentioned.
> has error prone C-style 'for'
Not really true. It has `for index, elt := range v` to iterate over arrays and maps. It's a pity you can't define your own range, that's true.
My issue for application and web server development are in the language design as it restricts me in my personal quest to write loosely coupled code that is marinated in unit tests - at least when compared to other languages.
That said I enjoy the language, have learned a lot from it, use Go often (previous day job) and have a gopher plushy - but I am just not a die hard loyalist. There are things about the language that blow others out of the water, but there are significant portions that leave a lot to be desired.
What I have noticed is the language design has inconsistencies and there are lots of exceptions built into the language to get around missing features; features which are sometimes filled in later leaving ambiguity around approaches.
For example, Go uses a nominal type system with the famous exception of interfaces with methods that are structurally evaluated. The issue is interfaces only feature structural type evaluation on the top level, anything nested beyond that is nominal.
So an interface that has a method which returns an interface requires an implementing struct to return the _exact_ interface from that same method.
You can accept a struct where an interface is a parameter but you cannot return a struct where an interface is the return type.
This is useful when building type safe dependency containers, something that makes unit testing much easier.
Instead people just overuse `Context`, prop drill it into everything and cast types at some point when trying to get things from it.
Other examples are the return types from functions. Go didn't have generics initially so a Result[T] wasn't possible - but also exceptions were not possible. Tuples were not allowed by the type system but the language makes an exception for the function return types - fair enough.
Without type parameters and a need for generic basic types like `map`, `slice` and `sync.Map`, the language made an exception for the the primitive types - giving them generics however this is now inconsistent with the current implementation of generics.
Usage of `make()` and the confusion brought on by managing "references" also adds a bit of friction to the language.
Generics are inconsistent as well - for instance you can have a struct with a type parameter but not methods - however you can have functions with type parameters that accept a struct as their first parameter.
The tooling is a little underpowered, the test coverage analysis tool doesn't consider branch coverage, only statement coverage so you can have 100% test coverage reported with only 50% truly covered.
Making mocks requires cumbersome type generation - this is something I am okay with but the types generated have terrible assertion capabilities.
But there are phenomenal things from the language. Packages are a great design choice, module management from git is simple and effective, `range` is chefs kiss, the compiler is beautiful.
I love the idea of goroutines but I'm not blown away by channels. They are fancy iterators with dedicated keywords which I find can clutter things up a little - but they were really cool when Go first came out and we were only just starting to think about how to manage asynchronous concurrency.
Possibly I'm misunderstanding the complaint, but that is because an interface is a fat pointer, so one returns a pointer to a struct implementing the interface.
https://go.dev/play/p/YOa6NF7rjPF
If I had to make a bet, I’d say Typescript will take over for everything not performance critical and Rust will fit in every spot that either requires high quality assurance or high performance.
> That said, I don't know what I'd want to drop from Rust so maybe I'm just fantasizing.
What is X? I don’t know.
https://vlang.io/compare#go
https://programming-language-benchmarks.vercel.app/v-vs-go
Dead Comment
* No optional/named parameters. Writing a whole function per parameter for function chaining is excessive. This would not be difficult to add to the compiler (i've done it and have seriously considered using the fork) but it seems like the team is just stubborn about adding stuff like this.
* No default struct values. 0 isn't good enough in real world scenarios.. have fun writing BlahInit(...) for everything.
* Would be nice to get the question mark syntax for error handling. Error handling shorthand for if err != nil would also be very welcome.
I love Go too but this does drive me nuts, especially when parsing JSON and wanting to set sane defaults for missing values. Like, for example, booleans that should default to "true".
The unmarshaller will iterate on the json input and set struct fields when json fields are found. This means that struct fields that don't match the json are ignored, and values you have set before will be left as is.
Pike slapped his Newsqueak's CSP paradigm on top and the rest is history.
How to combine sum types and a precise garbage collector?
https://developers.redhat.com/articles/2022/04/19/java-17-wh...
I think I'd prefer 2. But 1 will always remain an option I suppose.
And on the other hand, it's a simple flag. They added one memory flag in over a decade. I think they're holding the line on complexity pretty well?
1. runtime feature to limit memory use
2. a mechanism to configure it
What we just don't have yet is
3. standard way to read container memory limit
Once that comes to existence, the first two were gonna be needed anyway. And now you can experiment with #3 for the various container runtimes.
Besides its GC implementation that works very well most of the time, it also has simple but strong debugging tools to investigate how well you are handling memory allocation and CPU usage. Enforcing consistent coding style also makes it very easy to read other people's code and quickly contribute.
My suggestion to others is to avoid prematurely optimizing memory usage (e.g. trying to do zero-copy implementations) and always investigate performance via these profiling tools Go offers (e.g. pprof). Very often Golang's compiler or runtime will automatically optimize code that may not seem to allocate optimally.
There are still downsides but some of them are actively worked on:
1. Generics are still lack-luster (... but good enough to start replacing a lot of boilerplate code and will improve later on)
2. Error handling is still tedious (fortunately it seems to be their next big focus), it should take less code-space and have an option of stack-trace
3. Stdlib logging is too simple, lacks levels and structured-logging-style (currently actively discussed: https://github.com/golang/go/discussions/54763)
4. Low-level UDP networking is weak (soon to be fixed as they accepted this proposal: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/45886 ), this will become more important as we transition to QUIC protocol
5. CGo (C interop / C FFI) is pretty bad performance-wise compared to other languages, it's OK if it is an I/O operation but anything C interop that requires low latency won't be running great
6. Similar to other languages, nowadays there are growing external dependency trees (e.g. I always wanted to use testcontainers-go to make integration tests easier but man, have you seen the dependency tree you will pull in with that pacakge?), solution in my eyes is flattening and standardizing most commonly used packages but Go in particular is very opinionated regarding what is included in stdlib
The above downsides mostly come from the background of creating distributed data pipelines and certain data collectors/parsers. For building API servers, I keep hearing it is a godsend in its simplicity, so your mileage may vary depending on the business domain you work in.
I would be interested to hear other people's experience with Go, however!
See Terraform[0], Traefik[1], or OctoSQL[2].
Though I agree plugins would be welcome, especially for performance reasons, though also to be able to compile and load go code into a running go process (JIT-ish).
[0]: https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform
[1]: https://github.com/traefik/traefik
[2]: https://github.com/cube2222/octosql
Disclaimer: author of OctoSQL
If you have a language that has a module ecosystem, compiles fast, and generates a single binary, take advantage of that; don't try to reimplement fragile dynamic linking.
One way I've done it in the past is via sub processes talking via stdin/stdout. Another way I've done it is just via a regular REST API.
You'll never get enough performance for a lot of tasks if you need to pass a lot of data between applications. But depending on your needs it's more than serviceable. The benefit of this is that plugins don't need to be written in Go, as you have a simple interface.
A good example of this is something like LSP. LSP plugins are abundant and each one is written in a different language. VSCode is Typescript, the Go language server is written in Go. Both can speak to eachother fast enough.
it makes great sense for network with concurrency, not so with real time or low resource devices to me.
I thought JacaScript doesn’t have destructors (in the memory/resource management sense) or finalizers…