4 ms·

And yet, people are solving problems in it, often quite well. I say this as one who has basically mastered Haskell, so it's not like I'm not aware of all these

by jerf 7y ago

And yet, people are solving problems in it, often quite well. I say this as one who has basically mastered Haskell, so it's not like I'm not aware of all these things: Fans of all these complicated abstractions really need to take some time and grapple with that fact. It will improve your programming in the more complicated languages as well. No, seriously. Stop for a moment and think about that. Consider the advanced features as a scientific prediction: "If you do not use these features, you can't have a good program come out the other end." This prediction is falsified by the concrete existence of a lot of good Go programs. This matters. It is something that should be grappled with intellectually, if you are a language fan. It will bring you to a deeper understanding of all the fancy features. By a deeper understanding, I mean that quite directly, with no attempt to be subtly saying something like "Oh, you'll find they're all useless in the end." That would not be true. They are not even remotely useless. They are incredibly useful. I would even go so far as to say that the development of these complicated sorts of features is legitimately among some of the most simultaneously interesting and useful intellectual work being done in our time, and greatly contributing to our ability to hold our software world together. It's just that the shape of that usefulness is more complicated than a lot of people realize, and a deeper understanding of that complication is very useful for developers. One of the things that I think really comes out of it is a yet deeper understanding of matching tools to problems. I use a lot of Go, because I write a lot of things that are at a size and complexity where those other language features just aren't that helpful. Yet, there are tasks I could be assigned where I wouldn't dream of using Go, because I know I would need all that fancy stuff to hold the program together. I can easily imagine ways in which my career trajectory would change in the next couple of years and I'd go primarily Rust; I can equally easily imagine ways in which I will stay primarily Go. I can imagine ways in which I'd need to go with some other language. I think a lot of programmers who find these fancy features and fall in love with them end up overestimating the scope of the set of programs where they can be helpful. To give a degenerate example, my six line shell script does not need to be written in the Rust type system. It is not only not helpful, it would be actively harmful. The scope of programs that don't really need those features and where they quite easily become actively harmful is larger than a lot of people think. Especially if you consider them in the context of a heterogeneous team of developers who may not all be in the 5+ years of experience range, or when you may not be able to guarantee that the project is going to stay in those hands.

pjmlp 7y ago
I was also solving problems in Z80 Assembly, once upon a time.
- jerf 7y ago
  The sort of deeper understanding I'm talking about will actually integrate that as a point in a more comprehensive picture, rather than thinking of it as some sort exceptional case. To the extent that you have a model in your head where that point doesn't fit (and, I assume, believe that would somehow challenge the model in my head), I'd say that is also a point to consider and ponder and try to integrate, rather than having it sit outside of the model that only fits a fraction of the code out there, and has places where it actively mismatches existing code bases.
apta 7y ago
> Consider the advanced features as a scientific prediction: "If you do not use these features, you can't have a good program come out the other end." This prediction is falsified by the concrete existence of a lot of good Go programs. This matters. It is something that should be grappled with intellectually, if you are a language fan. I didn't mention anything about fancy features such as the likes of what Haskell and gang bring. I'm referring to much more "basic" things like generics, good error handling, non-nullable by default pointers, and so on. Things that one has come to expect in a modern language (which golang isn't in general). Having the ability to provide abstractions does not mean must use them to write software, but that they are available when required, and when used correctly, they end up simplifying the overall system architecture. I think the world has moved on from writing abstractions for the sake of writing abstractions, and I agree that it's not the way to go if such code is still being written. But the solution is not to get rid of the ability completely, resulting in a different sort of mess. At least we have tools that make navigating large code bases easier. I feel it's actually golang people end up reinventing things differently just for the sake of writing things differently. Take the builder pattern for instance. For some reason, golang code I see uses a different, more convoluted pattern of passing an options struct that gets returned in a closure to emulate that. It's a bigger mess to understand, and probably ends up generating more work for the GC since closures keep getting allocated.

by jerf 7y ago

pjmlp 7y ago

I was also solving problems in Z80 Assembly, once upon a time.

jerf 7y ago
The sort of deeper understanding I'm talking about will actually integrate that as a point in a more comprehensive picture, rather than thinking of it as some sort exceptional case. To the extent that you have a model in your head where that point doesn't fit (and, I assume, believe that would somehow challenge the model in my head), I'd say that is also a point to consider and ponder and try to integrate, rather than having it sit outside of the model that only fits a fraction of the code out there, and has places where it actively mismatches existing code bases.

apta 7y ago

> Consider the advanced features as a scientific prediction: "If you do not use these features, you can't have a good program come out the other end." This prediction is falsified by the concrete existence of a lot of good Go programs. This matters. It is something that should be grappled with intellectually, if you are a language fan. I didn't mention anything about fancy features such as the likes of what Haskell and gang bring. I'm referring to much more "basic" things like generics, good error handling, non-nullable by default pointers, and so on. Things that one has come to expect in a modern language (which golang isn't in general). Having the ability to provide abstractions does not mean must use them to write software, but that they are available when required, and when used correctly, they end up simplifying the overall system architecture. I think the world has moved on from writing abstractions for the sake of writing abstractions, and I agree that it's not the way to go if such code is still being written. But the solution is not to get rid of the ability completely, resulting in a different sort of mess. At least we have tools that make navigating large code bases easier. I feel it's actually golang people end up reinventing things differently just for the sake of writing things differently. Take the builder pattern for instance. For some reason, golang code I see uses a different, more convoluted pattern of passing an options struct that gets returned in a closure to emulate that. It's a bigger mess to understand, and probably ends up generating more work for the GC since closures keep getting allocated.