5 ms·

Go is such a compact pretty language.

itake 5y ago
compact?! - No Safe navigator: require 4 lines of code - No ternary support: require 6 lines of code - No map or filter functions (meaning you have to implement these in like 5-6 lines of code) - Golang relies on built-in generator comments to help alleviate all of the typing.
- svnpenn 5y ago
  > No Safe navigator: require 4 lines of code > No ternary support: require 6 lines of code > No map or filter functions (meaning you have to implement these in like 5-6 lines of code) I like that Go doesnt have these. Many programmers seem to want these big bloated programming languages. So thats what you end up with, a bunch of slow bloated programming languages. Personally I just want something like C, but with a couple of minimal extra features (maps, built in package management, bounds checking). For me, Go is the closest thing I have found to C, without many of the C pitfalls. > Golang relies on built-in generator comments to help alleviate all of the typing. I have been programming Go for a few years, and I have like one file in all of my code that uses a generator comment. That file is to interface with the Windows API. Regarding pure Go code, I dont use generator comments at all, so I think this comment is overblown.
  - takeda 5y ago
    > I like that Go doesnt have these. Many programmers seem to want these big bloated programming languages. So thats what you end up with, a bunch of slow bloated programming languages. Those features are added to remove bloat from your source code.
    - svnpenn 5y ago
      I don't think you understand what bloat is. Just because an end user program has less lines of code, doesn't mean bloat is reduced. That code gets made up in the API, or the language itself.
- Thaxll 5y ago
  No Safe navigator: require 4 lines of code No ternary support: require 6 lines of code I'm glad Go does not have those, it makes the code less readable. It's only useful for simple operation and very often chained and abused.
  - inopinatus 5y ago
    I very nearly got this ternary delight into FreeBSD src: if ((Lflag ? chown : lchown)(p->fts_accpath, s->st_uid, -1)) (void)printf(" not modified: %s\n", strerror(errno)); which relies on the identical signature of chown(2) and lchown(2) syscalls.
  - takeda 5y ago
    This reminds me of the posts from 15 years ago saying why not having clipboard on iPhone was better.
    - philosopher1234 5y ago
      Your point being that there’s no such thing as features that are better left out? Hard to believe
      - takeda 5y ago
        My point is that people develop attachment to things they own and use, and it's harder to be objective.
        catlifeonmars 5y ago
        Well, obviously. GP used the phrase “compact and pretty”. It’s a bit of a stretch to interpret that as an objective statement. The charitable interpretation is that GP meant it to be subjective. Edit: I got confused which post you were replying to. My apologies.
        philosopher1234 5y ago
        This is true of any defense ever made. Doesn’t say anything specific to this argument.
- Groxx 5y ago
  Yeah, I'm not sure "compact" is a term I'd ever use to describe Go. It's not as verbose as Enterprise™ Java, but hurdling that competition-height limbo-bar doesn't make something compact.
- posix86 5y ago
  Arguments for compactness: - Namespace system strongly favours single-word names - Type embedding allows for single-dot access (not this.path.is.long()) - Zero-elements allow for elegant, zero-line initialization and existance checks, alleviating in part the need safe navigatorion operators. Also I'd argue that the lack of map and filter are programmer nudges towards more elegant, compact solutions, but that's hard to prove. I've been annoyed with the lack of standard ways of doing things as well, but most often it turned out that I was simply doing it wrong, and Go was carefully designed to make the wrong way annoying to use. The compactness doesn't stem from using fewer lines to express simple constructs like if else, but the overall code organisation and structure that are the result of nudges like this one, as well as the code encapsulation they use (no classes, but interfaces and structs) and acyclic dependencies. Generics will come out with the next version, though.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

compact?! - No Safe navigator: require 4 lines of code - No ternary support: require 6 lines of code - No map or filter functions (meaning you have to implement these in like 5-6 lines of code) - Golang relies on built-in generator comments to help alleviate all of the typing.

svnpenn 5y ago
> No Safe navigator: require 4 lines of code > No ternary support: require 6 lines of code > No map or filter functions (meaning you have to implement these in like 5-6 lines of code) I like that Go doesnt have these. Many programmers seem to want these big bloated programming languages. So thats what you end up with, a bunch of slow bloated programming languages. Personally I just want something like C, but with a couple of minimal extra features (maps, built in package management, bounds checking). For me, Go is the closest thing I have found to C, without many of the C pitfalls. > Golang relies on built-in generator comments to help alleviate all of the typing. I have been programming Go for a few years, and I have like one file in all of my code that uses a generator comment. That file is to interface with the Windows API. Regarding pure Go code, I dont use generator comments at all, so I think this comment is overblown.
- takeda 5y ago
  > I like that Go doesnt have these. Many programmers seem to want these big bloated programming languages. So thats what you end up with, a bunch of slow bloated programming languages. Those features are added to remove bloat from your source code.
  - svnpenn 5y ago
    I don't think you understand what bloat is. Just because an end user program has less lines of code, doesn't mean bloat is reduced. That code gets made up in the API, or the language itself.
Thaxll 5y ago
No Safe navigator: require 4 lines of code No ternary support: require 6 lines of code I'm glad Go does not have those, it makes the code less readable. It's only useful for simple operation and very often chained and abused.
- inopinatus 5y ago
  I very nearly got this ternary delight into FreeBSD src: if ((Lflag ? chown : lchown)(p->fts_accpath, s->st_uid, -1)) (void)printf(" not modified: %s\n", strerror(errno)); which relies on the identical signature of chown(2) and lchown(2) syscalls.
- takeda 5y ago
  This reminds me of the posts from 15 years ago saying why not having clipboard on iPhone was better.
  - philosopher1234 5y ago
    Your point being that there’s no such thing as features that are better left out? Hard to believe
    - takeda 5y ago
      My point is that people develop attachment to things they own and use, and it's harder to be objective.
      - catlifeonmars 5y ago
        Well, obviously. GP used the phrase “compact and pretty”. It’s a bit of a stretch to interpret that as an objective statement. The charitable interpretation is that GP meant it to be subjective. Edit: I got confused which post you were replying to. My apologies.
      - philosopher1234 5y ago
        This is true of any defense ever made. Doesn’t say anything specific to this argument.
Groxx 5y ago
Yeah, I'm not sure "compact" is a term I'd ever use to describe Go. It's not as verbose as Enterprise™ Java, but hurdling that competition-height limbo-bar doesn't make something compact.
posix86 5y ago
Arguments for compactness: - Namespace system strongly favours single-word names - Type embedding allows for single-dot access (not this.path.is.long()) - Zero-elements allow for elegant, zero-line initialization and existance checks, alleviating in part the need safe navigatorion operators. Also I'd argue that the lack of map and filter are programmer nudges towards more elegant, compact solutions, but that's hard to prove. I've been annoyed with the lack of standard ways of doing things as well, but most often it turned out that I was simply doing it wrong, and Go was carefully designed to make the wrong way annoying to use. The compactness doesn't stem from using fewer lines to express simple constructs like if else, but the overall code organisation and structure that are the result of nudges like this one, as well as the code encapsulation they use (no classes, but interfaces and structs) and acyclic dependencies. Generics will come out with the next version, though.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]