3 ms·

Couldn't agree more. It was why my transition from Javascript (Node) to Go was very freeing - I had been so used to being constantly paranoid about my data type

Couldn't agree more. It was why my transition from Javascript (Node) to Go was very freeing - I had been so used to being constantly paranoid about my data types from Python and Javascript that even the most modest types of Go made a huge relief. Likewise, with Rust it is a relief after Go. In Go interfaces are a massive part of the language and they can only be pointers, which means much of your programming experience holds mental overhead needed to frequently answer "is this variable safe? Can I access it, or might it be nil?". There's definitely overhead in learning how to use the borrow checker, but I feel that's the same as any basic language features in any language. Once learned, I largely don't think of them, and I don't fear using variables or what is concurrently safe anymore.

mntmoss 8y ago
I can definitely see where the author was coming from in terms of new code. I've been of the opinion that it's probably better to greenfield new systems alongside a GC'd runtime(which makes Go a pretty good fit, but also D, Nim, etc. - and for the very experimental stages where the type layout is minimally understood - Python, Lua, JS, etc.), and to take on external dependencies to get a result working - and then rewrite parts with manual memory and custom libraries where the spec needs tightening. The main downside to this is that you're rewriting stuff, but the goal of the rewrite should be to express what is essentially the same functionality in more detail. Where I think the author might have erred is in switching between three different manual memory languages in the hopes of faster development. The algorithms needed for a 3D tool have a pretty high base complexity, making it hard to bootstrap the codebase - and I suspect that C++ will ultimately frustrate him just as much as Rust and C did before.

mntmoss 8y ago

I can definitely see where the author was coming from in terms of new code. I've been of the opinion that it's probably better to greenfield new systems alongside a GC'd runtime(which makes Go a pretty good fit, but also D, Nim, etc. - and for the very experimental stages where the type layout is minimally understood - Python, Lua, JS, etc.), and to take on external dependencies to get a result working - and then rewrite parts with manual memory and custom libraries where the spec needs tightening. The main downside to this is that you're rewriting stuff, but the goal of the rewrite should be to express what is essentially the same functionality in more detail. Where I think the author might have erred is in switching between three different manual memory languages in the hopes of faster development. The algorithms needed for a 3D tool have a pretty high base complexity, making it hard to bootstrap the codebase - and I suspect that C++ will ultimately frustrate him just as much as Rust and C did before.