• sping@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 hours ago

    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.

    • CptKrkIsClmbngThMntn [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 hours ago

      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.

      • sping@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 hours ago

        I have decades as a SWE, including deep (but now out-of-date) C++ experience, a lot more recently in serious Python systems, and a fair amount of web UI dev on the side.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).