4 ms·

Go has many shortcomings that make it difficult and extremely annoying to do refactorings. Things like no constructors where types are declared as follows

Go has many shortcomings that make it difficult and extremely annoying to do refactorings. Things like no constructors where types are declared as follows A { Field1: field1, Field2, field2, } Now adding a new field to A would require ensuring that all code paths initialize Field3, otherwise you're going to have silent errors at runtime. This has been solved ages ago in Java and C# and similar languages by means of constructors.

shadowgovt 6y ago
A constructor is just a function though... If I add a new field to a Java class and fail to add its initialization to the constructor, I have the exact same problem because Java initializes the field to its default value when the constructor is called. You are correct that every situation where the struct in Go is initialized "bare" would need to be addressed if a field is added, but Go considers this a feature, not a bug (and, conversely, considers "bare initialization" of structs at dozens of places in your code to be bad practice if that struct could ever grow new fields). If you're bare-initializing structs, you're comfortable using them in a "loosey-goosey" context where zero-initialized fields are permitted (or, better, useful... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAAkCSZUG1c&t=6m25s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAAkCSZUG1c&t=6m25s). In Go, the issue of required structure is addressed by wrapping the struct in an interface and then providing a function in the package that can create an instance of the interface. Used in that way, you get something very similar to a Java class (though Go doesn't force you into the "everything is a class" paradigm that Java demands).
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Usually you would create a constructor without that parameter which sets the field to something backwards-compatible.
- gher-shyu3i 6y ago
  > but Go considers this a feature, not a bug I see this dismissive philosophy in golang a lot (I'm not saying you're doing it, mind you). The entire language is full of arbitrariness. I've seen enums being dismissed by the golang team just because, without providing any meaningful arguments. Same with how nullability was not addressed in the language, contrary to how proper modern languages have tacked the issue. The excuse? "that's how the underlying machine operates". Quite meaningless and dismissive really. Time and time again, it's been shown that the goal is to have a simplistic (not simple) language that also makes it easy to write the compiler for. This breaks down at larger scales because reality is complicated.

shadowgovt 6y ago

A constructor is just a function though... If I add a new field to a Java class and fail to add its initialization to the constructor, I have the exact same problem because Java initializes the field to its default value when the constructor is called. You are correct that every situation where the struct in Go is initialized "bare" would need to be addressed if a field is added, but Go considers this a feature, not a bug (and, conversely, considers "bare initialization" of structs at dozens of places in your code to be bad practice if that struct could ever grow new fields). If you're bare-initializing structs, you're comfortable using them in a "loosey-goosey" context where zero-initialized fields are permitted (or, better, useful... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAAkCSZUG1c&t=6m25s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAAkCSZUG1c&t=6m25s). In Go, the issue of required structure is addressed by wrapping the struct in an interface and then providing a function in the package that can create an instance of the interface. Used in that way, you get something very similar to a Java class (though Go doesn't force you into the "everything is a class" paradigm that Java demands).

saagarjha 6y ago
Usually you would create a constructor without that parameter which sets the field to something backwards-compatible.
gher-shyu3i 6y ago
> but Go considers this a feature, not a bug I see this dismissive philosophy in golang a lot (I'm not saying you're doing it, mind you). The entire language is full of arbitrariness. I've seen enums being dismissed by the golang team just because, without providing any meaningful arguments. Same with how nullability was not addressed in the language, contrary to how proper modern languages have tacked the issue. The excuse? "that's how the underlying machine operates". Quite meaningless and dismissive really. Time and time again, it's been shown that the goal is to have a simplistic (not simple) language that also makes it easy to write the compiler for. This breaks down at larger scales because reality is complicated.