6 ms·

TS and Golang aren't comparable. I use both and I've never had a case where I needed to decide between the two. Golang is a high performance, modern language wi

TS and Golang aren't comparable. I use both and I've never had a case where I needed to decide between the two. Golang is a high performance, modern language without the low-level or legacy headaches of comparably performant languages. Golang was written for an era where network communication and concurrency are commonly necessities and those use cases feel very natural. Typescript is JS (a conversation ending advantage in many cases) and so the concurrency model is amazing in some cases (e.g. when most of the work is async stuff like API calls) and pretty terrible in others (parallelizable computational work). Golang was designed for getting shit done. If you are a big believer in OOP, then Golang feels underfeatured. But if you don't really care about OOP and you just want some of the advantages like basic inheritance, type safety, etc, Golang has everything you need to write performant, effective code quickly (there are use cases where that isn't true I'm sure, but, for me, Go's type system has been helpful and not a hinderance). There's nothing wrong with using the empty interface when you need to (any more than using any in TS, which you have to do in many applications). I've found that Golang codebases are easy to pick up. I think everyone has some part of the Go style that they think is ugly (I 100% find append ugly), but for me this has mostly been inconsequential stuff - it has never gotten in the way of me solving business problems with high performance code. The tooling is the same (at least if you are using modules). It does its job well enough and then gets out of the way while you create business value. I don't know your use case so this might not be relevant, but sometimes people will overuse for loops and slices when they might find it easier in Golang to pass around channels and use the pipeline pattern[1]. For me, Golang is like Python but with static typing and high performance. Fast to implement, easy to read, and focused on getting code out the door. [1] https://blog.golang.org/pipelines https://blog.golang.org/pipelines

tigershark 6y ago
Maybe you are not really taking full advantage of the powerful type system in typescript if you don’t see any lacks in go type system and if you think that using ‘any’ or the empty interface is perfectly normal?
AlphaSite 6y ago
IMO Go's biggest issue is its lack of the functional features which have trickled into most languages (although arguably without generics, this is impossible to implement). I dont particularly want Haskell with semi colons and braces, but a functional style definitely has its place. Just like Go has a subset of the traditional object oriented style, i think there is a place for a subset of functional.
- solidasparagus 6y ago
  What do you miss? All I've ever really needed is the ability to pass around functions as first class primitives which Golang has.
nine_k 6y ago
I always cringe when people proclaim that they need to "get shit done". It often pays to be mindful of what is getting done as a result.
- solidasparagus 6y ago
  Are you suggesting that Golang leads to to poor quality software? That hasn't been my experience.
  - nine_k 6y ago
    No, I specifically quote words from the comment to which I'm replying. The problem is language-independent, but is more pronounced among adepts of "practical" languages and tools.
- erik_seaberg 6y ago
  I think some people feel productive when they write out a big loop, but to me it’s wasted effort. I want to write col.filter(_.isReady).map(convertToX).any(_.color == BLUE) and generate whatever fused loops make that work. I don’t want to write and review loop boilerplate by hand for the same reason that I don’t want to customize the stack frame layout when I call a function.
  - nikon 6y ago
    It really doesn't matter day to day once you're in the loop (cough). I agree, it's an ugly language on the face of it, but you get over that quickly. You come to appreciate the language as a whole. A bigger concern when I started out with Go was the imports/lack of versioning, and at the time the lack of official package manager.
  - solidasparagus 6y ago
    I've never found it much more painful to write: for i, c in range col { if c.isReady && convertToX(c).color == "BLUE": return True } (which is not to say I don't miss the map/filter syntax - although I don't miss the bugs related to lazy execution in stuff like LINQ or Spark)
pansa2 6y ago
> Golang is like Python [...] Fast to implement, easy to read I disagree. Python is often described as "executable pseudocode" - for example, to delete the `i`th element from a list `a` you use `del a[i]`. In Go, it's much more convoluted: `a = append(a[:i], a[i+1:]...)`. Plus, without generics, you can't even easily hide that inside a function! There's a whole page of these "tricks" that are necessary to perform basic operations on slices: https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/SliceTricks https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/SliceTricks
- amscanne 6y ago
  Interesting. I didn’t know you could do that in python with a list. It would be trivial for Go to support the delete keyword on slices (mapping to the statement you noted), but I think it would be a bad idea. Sometimes you want an operation to be awkward intentionally because it’s fundamentally costly. Hiding that cost by making everything look the same doesn’t always help the programmer. Languages should be powerful, but there should be an intuitive relationship between the code the computational complexity (not exact, but intuitive). I’m sure there are counter examples, but I think Go generally does a good job at this. Plain loops are standard, make, append, new, delete, etc. have obvious costs. Error handling is explicit.
- solidasparagus 6y ago
  Yeah, Python is much much more readable than Go. I feel like performance focused languages are always less readable because the language needs to give you more control and I think Golang lets you work at a pretty high level of abstraction while still having plenty of control on performance. Once you know Go, it's pretty easy to read someone else's code, which I think is really nice. But "easy to read" might have been a little bit of a stretch.
- pansa2 6y ago
  > `a = append(a[:i], a[i+1:]...)` Not only is this ugly and unintuitive (“what function do I call to delete an element?”; “append”), according to the linked page it can also cause a memory leak?!
  - 6y ago
Abishek_Muthian 6y ago
>Golang was designed for getting shit done That's indeed a good way to explain the utility driven nature of Go. I've been predominantly using OOP languages before and Go's deliberate lack of OOP features was although uncomfortable at first, the advantages of getting things done fast far outweighed it later when I released production applications with it. >For me, Golang is like Python but with static typing and high performance. Fast to implement, easy to read, and focused on getting code out the door. I was tired of adding disclaimer when teaching Python, that when you want to extract performance out of it you should also learn 'C/C++'. Go serves as a perfect replacement to Python where performance is a necessity, I don't see where that would be false in a production environment where 'code performance == capital efficiency'.

tigershark 6y ago

Maybe you are not really taking full advantage of the powerful type system in typescript if you don’t see any lacks in go type system and if you think that using ‘any’ or the empty interface is perfectly normal?

AlphaSite 6y ago

IMO Go's biggest issue is its lack of the functional features which have trickled into most languages (although arguably without generics, this is impossible to implement). I dont particularly want Haskell with semi colons and braces, but a functional style definitely has its place. Just like Go has a subset of the traditional object oriented style, i think there is a place for a subset of functional.

solidasparagus 6y ago
What do you miss? All I've ever really needed is the ability to pass around functions as first class primitives which Golang has.

nine_k 6y ago

I always cringe when people proclaim that they need to "get shit done". It often pays to be mindful of what is getting done as a result.

solidasparagus 6y ago
Are you suggesting that Golang leads to to poor quality software? That hasn't been my experience.
- nine_k 6y ago
  No, I specifically quote words from the comment to which I'm replying. The problem is language-independent, but is more pronounced among adepts of "practical" languages and tools.
erik_seaberg 6y ago
I think some people feel productive when they write out a big loop, but to me it’s wasted effort. I want to write col.filter(_.isReady).map(convertToX).any(_.color == BLUE) and generate whatever fused loops make that work. I don’t want to write and review loop boilerplate by hand for the same reason that I don’t want to customize the stack frame layout when I call a function.
- nikon 6y ago
  It really doesn't matter day to day once you're in the loop (cough). I agree, it's an ugly language on the face of it, but you get over that quickly. You come to appreciate the language as a whole. A bigger concern when I started out with Go was the imports/lack of versioning, and at the time the lack of official package manager.
- solidasparagus 6y ago
  I've never found it much more painful to write: for i, c in range col { if c.isReady && convertToX(c).color == "BLUE": return True } (which is not to say I don't miss the map/filter syntax - although I don't miss the bugs related to lazy execution in stuff like LINQ or Spark)

pansa2 6y ago

> Golang is like Python [...] Fast to implement, easy to read I disagree. Python is often described as "executable pseudocode" - for example, to delete the `i`th element from a list `a` you use `del a[i]`. In Go, it's much more convoluted: `a = append(a[:i], a[i+1:]...)`. Plus, without generics, you can't even easily hide that inside a function! There's a whole page of these "tricks" that are necessary to perform basic operations on slices: https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/SliceTricks https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/SliceTricks

amscanne 6y ago
Interesting. I didn’t know you could do that in python with a list. It would be trivial for Go to support the delete keyword on slices (mapping to the statement you noted), but I think it would be a bad idea. Sometimes you want an operation to be awkward intentionally because it’s fundamentally costly. Hiding that cost by making everything look the same doesn’t always help the programmer. Languages should be powerful, but there should be an intuitive relationship between the code the computational complexity (not exact, but intuitive). I’m sure there are counter examples, but I think Go generally does a good job at this. Plain loops are standard, make, append, new, delete, etc. have obvious costs. Error handling is explicit.
solidasparagus 6y ago
Yeah, Python is much much more readable than Go. I feel like performance focused languages are always less readable because the language needs to give you more control and I think Golang lets you work at a pretty high level of abstraction while still having plenty of control on performance. Once you know Go, it's pretty easy to read someone else's code, which I think is really nice. But "easy to read" might have been a little bit of a stretch.
pansa2 6y ago
> `a = append(a[:i], a[i+1:]...)` Not only is this ugly and unintuitive (“what function do I call to delete an element?”; “append”), according to the linked page it can also cause a memory leak?!
- 6y ago

Abishek_Muthian 6y ago

>Golang was designed for getting shit done That's indeed a good way to explain the utility driven nature of Go. I've been predominantly using OOP languages before and Go's deliberate lack of OOP features was although uncomfortable at first, the advantages of getting things done fast far outweighed it later when I released production applications with it. >For me, Golang is like Python but with static typing and high performance. Fast to implement, easy to read, and focused on getting code out the door. I was tired of adding disclaimer when teaching Python, that when you want to extract performance out of it you should also learn 'C/C++'. Go serves as a perfect replacement to Python where performance is a necessity, I don't see where that would be false in a production environment where 'code performance == capital efficiency'.