14 ms·

Well written list of what made Go better language during last years. I'd add iterators, the recent big thing from Russ.

galkk 2y ago
Wow. I haven't followed Go for a while, thanks for that note. Iterators are very nice addition, even with typical Go fashion of quite ugly syntax.
- mseepgood 2y ago
  They don't have any syntax that differs from the previous Go versions.
- kjksf 2y ago
  Just last week I've implemented an iterator for my C++ type and lol to your comment. It was fucking nightmare compared to how you (will) implement an iterator in Go. I didn't study the reason why Go chose this way over others. I do know they've considered other ways of doing it and concluded this one is best, based on complex criteria. People who make value judgements like this typically ignore those complex consideration, of which playing well with all the past Go design decisions is the most important. Frankly, you didn't even bother to say which language does it better or provide a concrete example of the supposedly non-ugly alternative.
  - galkk 2y ago
    C#, python - here are the most mainstream examples of syntax that doesn’t look alien.
valyala 2y ago
Iterators and generics go against the original goals of Go - simplicity and productivity. They complicated Go language specification too much without giving back significant benefits. Iterators and generics also encourage writing unnecessarily complicated code, which makes Go less pleasant to work with. I tried explaining this at https://itnext.io/go-evolves-in-the-wrong-direction-7dfda8a1a620 https://itnext.io/go-evolves-in-the-wrong-direction-7dfda8a1...
- jdnendjjd 2y ago
  This argument is brought up again and again, but it is just wrong. Go had both generics and iterators from the get go. Just not user defined ones. Thus it is obvious that the creators of the language always saw their need for a simple and productive language
  - eweise 2y ago
    Not obvious to me. We just implemented a streaming solution using the iterator interfaces. They are just functions so reading the code its easy to understand. Adding special language support only serves to obfuscate the actual code.
  - joeblubaugh 2y ago
    I do agree with his point that the implicit mutation of the loop body for an iterative will be difficult to debug.
  - valyala 2y ago
    Go provides generic types since v1.0 - maps, slices and channels. Go also provides generic functions and operators for working with these types - append, copy, clear, delete. This allows writing clear and efficient code. There is close to zero practical need in user-defined generic types and generic functions. Go 1.18 opened Pandora box of unnecessary complexity of Go specification and Go type system because of generics. Users started writing overcomplicated generic code instead of writing simple code solving the given concrete task.
    - sterlind 2y ago
      tell me, how often do you find yourself writing `interface{}`?
      - valyala 2y ago
        Very rarely
- 2y ago

Wow. I haven't followed Go for a while, thanks for that note. Iterators are very nice addition, even with typical Go fashion of quite ugly syntax.

mseepgood 2y ago
They don't have any syntax that differs from the previous Go versions.
kjksf 2y ago
Just last week I've implemented an iterator for my C++ type and lol to your comment. It was fucking nightmare compared to how you (will) implement an iterator in Go. I didn't study the reason why Go chose this way over others. I do know they've considered other ways of doing it and concluded this one is best, based on complex criteria. People who make value judgements like this typically ignore those complex consideration, of which playing well with all the past Go design decisions is the most important. Frankly, you didn't even bother to say which language does it better or provide a concrete example of the supposedly non-ugly alternative.
- galkk 2y ago
  C#, python - here are the most mainstream examples of syntax that doesn’t look alien.

valyala 2y ago

Iterators and generics go against the original goals of Go - simplicity and productivity. They complicated Go language specification too much without giving back significant benefits. Iterators and generics also encourage writing unnecessarily complicated code, which makes Go less pleasant to work with. I tried explaining this at https://itnext.io/go-evolves-in-the-wrong-direction-7dfda8a1a620 https://itnext.io/go-evolves-in-the-wrong-direction-7dfda8a1...

jdnendjjd 2y ago
This argument is brought up again and again, but it is just wrong. Go had both generics and iterators from the get go. Just not user defined ones. Thus it is obvious that the creators of the language always saw their need for a simple and productive language
- eweise 2y ago
  Not obvious to me. We just implemented a streaming solution using the iterator interfaces. They are just functions so reading the code its easy to understand. Adding special language support only serves to obfuscate the actual code.
- joeblubaugh 2y ago
  I do agree with his point that the implicit mutation of the loop body for an iterative will be difficult to debug.
- valyala 2y ago
  Go provides generic types since v1.0 - maps, slices and channels. Go also provides generic functions and operators for working with these types - append, copy, clear, delete. This allows writing clear and efficient code. There is close to zero practical need in user-defined generic types and generic functions. Go 1.18 opened Pandora box of unnecessary complexity of Go specification and Go type system because of generics. Users started writing overcomplicated generic code instead of writing simple code solving the given concrete task.
  - sterlind 2y ago
    tell me, how often do you find yourself writing `interface{}`?
    - valyala 2y ago
      Very rarely
2y ago