> "I’ve seen many people coming from Python or C♯ try to shoehorn concepts or patterns from those languages in Go. Common ones include using struct embedding as

> "I’ve seen many people coming from Python or C♯ try to shoehorn concepts or patterns from those languages in Go. Common ones include using struct embedding as inheritance, panics as exceptions, “pseudo-dynamic programming” with interface{}, and so forth. It rarely ends well, if ever." I've seen this so much. I did it too. You can almost watch people go through this process in places like r/golang. We all start off coming from a different language and being used to that, and while Go takes about an hour to learn all the syntax, it's only then that the learning starts. We all then try to write code the way we've always written it, only to find that Go doesn't work like that. Then we bump into the "this standard lib logging library is so shit, let's write a better one" (for the more ambitious, this is a whole framework). Then we learn more, and begin to realise why the logging lib is like that, and why there's no need for some kind of middleware construct, and so on. I'm not sure where this journey ends, because I haven't finished it yet - I suspect my understanding of chans and goroutines is incomplete because I still think they're "a bit clunky". Simple is hard. But good.