That seems to be the Go way. Why put it in a library when everyone can just re-implement it themselves (and test and document it too, right? Right?).
E.g. There isn’t even a standard set object, everyone just implements it as a map pointing to empty structs, and you get familiar with that and just accept it and learn to understand what it means when someone added an empty struct to a map. And then people try to paint this as a virtue of the language.
E.g. There isn’t even a standard set object, everyone just implements it as a map pointing to empty structs, and you get familiar with that and just accept it and learn to understand what it means when someone added an empty struct to a map.
Goooood fucking gravy.
I hate to be such an opinionated programmer, but everything I’ve read about Go only reinforces my negative opinion, especially since I read this now-famous article.
I have decades as a SWE, including deep (but now out-of-date) C++ experience, a lot more recently in serious Python systems, and a fair amount of web UI dev on the side.
Now I have 1 year with Go. I came to it with an open mind having heard people sing its praises I thought it would be broadening to spend some time with a language new to me.
My advice now is do anything you can to avoid working in golang. Almost daily, I seriously contemplate whether it’d be worth quitting and being unemployed, even in this economy (US). It is a better C, but that’s a low, low bar at least for the project domains I ever work in. Where it’s an even plausible answer, Rust is probably a better one (I think? - haven’t used Rust for anything real).
The one, fool-proof solution to supply chain attacks? Write all your own dependencies.
That seems to be the Go way. Why put it in a library when everyone can just re-implement it themselves (and test and document it too, right? Right?).
E.g. There isn’t even a standard set object, everyone just implements it as a map pointing to empty structs, and you get familiar with that and just accept it and learn to understand what it means when someone added an empty struct to a map. And then people try to paint this as a virtue of the language.
Goooood fucking gravy.
I hate to be such an opinionated programmer, but everything I’ve read about Go only reinforces my negative opinion, especially since I read this now-famous article.
I have decades as a SWE, including deep (but now out-of-date) C++ experience, a lot more recently in serious Python systems, and a fair amount of web UI dev on the side.
Now I have 1 year with Go. I came to it with an open mind having heard people sing its praises I thought it would be broadening to spend some time with a language new to me.
My advice now is do anything you can to avoid working in golang. Almost daily, I seriously contemplate whether it’d be worth quitting and being unemployed, even in this economy (US). It is a better C, but that’s a low, low bar at least for the project domains I ever work in. Where it’s an even plausible answer, Rust is probably a better one (I think? - haven’t used Rust for anything real).
I’m already writing my own dependency to check if a number is even:
if (number == 0) return true if (number == 1) return false if (number == 2) return true if (number == 3) return falseI’m almost there!
You’ve probably covered 90% of use cases there so you’re doing well!
I’m trying to port your code to Rust but the compiler keeps giving me an error about non-exhaustive match arms
It’s quite cruel of that compiler not being happy until you’re exhausted.
this is so sad, I’m gonna pray for you in rust
Assuming you’re monotheistic, I believe you can use an mpsc channel to send those asynchronously.