3 ms·

> instant feedback is possible in Go as it compiles super fast Heh, you should try a language that comes with a repl and allows you to evaluate code directly f

> instant feedback is possible in Go as it compiles super fast Heh, you should try a language that comes with a repl and allows you to evaluate code directly from your editor in any context and get the results back. Then you'll have experienced "instant feedback". Until then, I can agree that Golang compiles faster than other languages, but it's nowhere near instant. In some other languages, you don't really care how fast it compiles as you only do it for deployments anyways (like Clojure).

kortex 7y ago
Many options https://repl.it/languages/go https://repl.it/languages/go https://github.com/d5/tengo https://github.com/d5/tengo https://github.com/motemen/gore https://github.com/motemen/gore Also you kinda don't need a repl as much with go (coming from a python background and constantly repl-dev-ing), especially with an IDE. Everything is so clear and type-safe there is little divide between the architecture in my mind and the code's behavior.
- capableweb 7y ago
  It's not that you don't need a repl. It's that you don't really get the many benefits other repl-heavy languages have, like Smalltalk and the many different lisps. You got a lot of implicit state and other non-ergonimic constructs in the language that doesn't lend itself to live in a repl for development. Also I expanded a bit more on why Golang doesn't fit for repls in general here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23053343 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23053343
foldr 7y ago
A REPL only gives you instant feedback on code that you type into the REPL. If you make some changes to three modules and you want to find out the effect of those changes then you need to...recompile the modules. Having a REPL doesn't help. I don't find that a REPL really gives me anything that I don't get from tests in Go. The only difference in practice is that I type the code into a text editor rather than into a REPL prompt (which is actually a better experience). On top of that, it's usually good to have that kind of code saved somewhere rather than existing ephemerally in a REPL session.
- capableweb 7y ago
  Depends on how the language you use works. Golang is not made for repl usage so of course you don't really get the full power. Compare with something like Clojure where redefining a function in a repl, makes every function using that function also use the new definition. Start treating functions as just functions without any implicit state, and you can start to overwrite things in the program on the fly. Super valuable when debugging and otherwise also when creating code as you can much easier test ideas. I don't know if it has a different word, but a repl for Clojure using a repl-workflow is very different from a repl for Golang with the normal "save -> compile -> run" workflow you have with Go. For example, using a repl-workflow in Clojure doesn't mean you don't write code in your editor. I use vim + vim-fireplace to write my code, then highlight the parts I want to evaluate. So I get both in one. The repl is running in the background, and vim-fireplace communicates with it. Combine this with a SPA and I can have something like `(.alert js/window @username)`, highlight it and evaluate, then have an alert prompt in my browser window, which is next to my editor. Saves me a ton of time.
  - foldr 7y ago
    Yes, I've used Clojure and other Lisps before. The thing is, I don't want to overwrite function definitions in a REPL, because I then lose track of what code I'm actually running. It's much more effective just to make changes in a text editor and track your state using version control. In a language that compiles quickly, a REPL just adds an additional layer of complexity for no benefit. In a language that doesn't compile quickly, redefining functions on the fly in a REPL is a useful hack that lessens the pain somewhat. >I use vim + vim-fireplace to write my code, then highlight the parts I want to evaluate. So I get both in one. Sure, and with Go in VSCode, I just click 'run' above the test I just wrote. It isn't any more difficult.
    - capableweb 7y ago
      > much more effective just to make changes in a text editor and track your state using version control Statements like this makes it seem like while you probably have dabbled in Clojure and other lisps, you haven't used them substantially, as if you're using Clojure, you still make your changes in your favorite editor and code is still tracked in version control. It's not REPL _or_ code editor, it's code editor + repl backing. Redefining functions on the fly is not a hack to lessen the pain, it's a defined workflow that makes you be able to work faster. If you're using it and it feels like something to lessen the pain, you're using it wrong. > Sure, and with Go in VSCode, I just click 'run' above the test I just wrote. It isn't any more difficult. This assumes a lot of things around the code that you're executing. First, you've already setup a test and it's already isolated enough. With a powerful repl + idioms, you don't need to do that, as you can execute parts of a function just to introspect that part, kind of like a debugger but works anywhere automatically. In the end, I'm not gonna try to convince you to try something if you don't want to try it. But if you're anything like me, finding more productive ways of working is always interesting, even if they end up not being as productive as we first thought. With that in mind, since you seem to not have super much experience with a powerful repl, if you try it I'm sure you'll find what I say to be helping you be a better programmer.
vijaybritto 7y ago
Yes thats a good example. But not needing JVM and single binary output take out so much complexity.

kortex 7y ago

Many options https://repl.it/languages/go https://repl.it/languages/go https://github.com/d5/tengo https://github.com/d5/tengo https://github.com/motemen/gore https://github.com/motemen/gore Also you kinda don't need a repl as much with go (coming from a python background and constantly repl-dev-ing), especially with an IDE. Everything is so clear and type-safe there is little divide between the architecture in my mind and the code's behavior.

capableweb 7y ago
It's not that you don't need a repl. It's that you don't really get the many benefits other repl-heavy languages have, like Smalltalk and the many different lisps. You got a lot of implicit state and other non-ergonimic constructs in the language that doesn't lend itself to live in a repl for development. Also I expanded a bit more on why Golang doesn't fit for repls in general here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23053343 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23053343

foldr 7y ago

A REPL only gives you instant feedback on code that you type into the REPL. If you make some changes to three modules and you want to find out the effect of those changes then you need to...recompile the modules. Having a REPL doesn't help. I don't find that a REPL really gives me anything that I don't get from tests in Go. The only difference in practice is that I type the code into a text editor rather than into a REPL prompt (which is actually a better experience). On top of that, it's usually good to have that kind of code saved somewhere rather than existing ephemerally in a REPL session.

capableweb 7y ago
Depends on how the language you use works. Golang is not made for repl usage so of course you don't really get the full power. Compare with something like Clojure where redefining a function in a repl, makes every function using that function also use the new definition. Start treating functions as just functions without any implicit state, and you can start to overwrite things in the program on the fly. Super valuable when debugging and otherwise also when creating code as you can much easier test ideas. I don't know if it has a different word, but a repl for Clojure using a repl-workflow is very different from a repl for Golang with the normal "save -> compile -> run" workflow you have with Go. For example, using a repl-workflow in Clojure doesn't mean you don't write code in your editor. I use vim + vim-fireplace to write my code, then highlight the parts I want to evaluate. So I get both in one. The repl is running in the background, and vim-fireplace communicates with it. Combine this with a SPA and I can have something like `(.alert js/window @username)`, highlight it and evaluate, then have an alert prompt in my browser window, which is next to my editor. Saves me a ton of time.
- foldr 7y ago
  Yes, I've used Clojure and other Lisps before. The thing is, I don't want to overwrite function definitions in a REPL, because I then lose track of what code I'm actually running. It's much more effective just to make changes in a text editor and track your state using version control. In a language that compiles quickly, a REPL just adds an additional layer of complexity for no benefit. In a language that doesn't compile quickly, redefining functions on the fly in a REPL is a useful hack that lessens the pain somewhat. >I use vim + vim-fireplace to write my code, then highlight the parts I want to evaluate. So I get both in one. Sure, and with Go in VSCode, I just click 'run' above the test I just wrote. It isn't any more difficult.
  - capableweb 7y ago
    > much more effective just to make changes in a text editor and track your state using version control Statements like this makes it seem like while you probably have dabbled in Clojure and other lisps, you haven't used them substantially, as if you're using Clojure, you still make your changes in your favorite editor and code is still tracked in version control. It's not REPL _or_ code editor, it's code editor + repl backing. Redefining functions on the fly is not a hack to lessen the pain, it's a defined workflow that makes you be able to work faster. If you're using it and it feels like something to lessen the pain, you're using it wrong. > Sure, and with Go in VSCode, I just click 'run' above the test I just wrote. It isn't any more difficult. This assumes a lot of things around the code that you're executing. First, you've already setup a test and it's already isolated enough. With a powerful repl + idioms, you don't need to do that, as you can execute parts of a function just to introspect that part, kind of like a debugger but works anywhere automatically. In the end, I'm not gonna try to convince you to try something if you don't want to try it. But if you're anything like me, finding more productive ways of working is always interesting, even if they end up not being as productive as we first thought. With that in mind, since you seem to not have super much experience with a powerful repl, if you try it I'm sure you'll find what I say to be helping you be a better programmer.

vijaybritto 7y ago

Yes thats a good example. But not needing JVM and single binary output take out so much complexity.