4 ms·

I feel like strong typing _helps_ when exploring a new domain, as it forces you to really think about the data you're operating on. In a language like Perl or P

I feel like strong typing _helps_ when exploring a new domain, as it forces you to really think about the data you're operating on. In a language like Perl or Python, it's so easy to just throw around a bunch of hashes/dicts and that can get messy really quickly. I don't miss _exceptions_ in Go but after using Rust for a while I've come to really love Rust's `Option` and `Result` types. They're more ergonomic and expressive than Go's errors-as-values, and the use `Option` also eliminate `nil` entirely, which has been a regular source of runtime panics in every large Go codebase I've worked on.

tialaramex 5y ago
Sum types are a thing I don't want to be without again. Not only the built in Option and Result, but once you're in the mindset you find they're the right fit for other problems too. In Rust itself, writing stuff where I actually care whether my structure is 16 or 20 bytes because I need to fit hundreds of millions of them into RAM, I like that Sum types ensure Option<NonZeroUsize> is the same size as usize, by reasoning that 0 isn't a valid NonZeroUsize and so it can signal None. However on a language like Go I don't miss that - what I do miss is the fact that in Rust I can't mistakenly end up with None(actually_something) or both an error and the result that shouldn't be there if there was an error.
teddyh 5y ago
Python is strongly typed, not weakly typed. What you are talking about is static typing, which Python is not; Python is dynamically typed. Please do not confuse the two concepts.
kraig 5y ago
With generics around the corner I am really hoping we see some flavor of Option & Result coming to Go. But I won't hold my breath for ?.
- preseinger 5y ago
  > I won't hold my breath for ?. Good idea :) `?` hides a control flow that Go takes great pains to make explicit. Adding it to the language would be a disaster.
wpietri 5y ago
It only helps to the extent that being forced to really think about the data is net useful. In conditions of high volatility, that's not always the case. If I create some throwaway prototype to test a hypothesis based on talking to a few users and then test it on a dozen more users, I don't want to think a ton about the domain. The sheaf of possibilities is often quite large, and narrowing down the possibilities requires better understanding of the users and the things we're creating for them. That understanding is only available in the future, and we only get to that future by making something. I really do love designing clear, expressive type systems. But the beginning of the project is when we know the very least about what will happen, so it's the worst time to invest in those type systems. It can be fine anyhow if the domain is stable and well-understood. Which I gather is Go's sweet spot, and I'm fine with that.

tialaramex 5y ago

Sum types are a thing I don't want to be without again. Not only the built in Option and Result, but once you're in the mindset you find they're the right fit for other problems too. In Rust itself, writing stuff where I actually care whether my structure is 16 or 20 bytes because I need to fit hundreds of millions of them into RAM, I like that Sum types ensure Option<NonZeroUsize> is the same size as usize, by reasoning that 0 isn't a valid NonZeroUsize and so it can signal None. However on a language like Go I don't miss that - what I do miss is the fact that in Rust I can't mistakenly end up with None(actually_something) or both an error and the result that shouldn't be there if there was an error.

teddyh 5y ago

Python is strongly typed, not weakly typed. What you are talking about is static typing, which Python is not; Python is dynamically typed. Please do not confuse the two concepts.

kraig 5y ago

With generics around the corner I am really hoping we see some flavor of Option & Result coming to Go. But I won't hold my breath for ?.

preseinger 5y ago
> I won't hold my breath for ?. Good idea :) `?` hides a control flow that Go takes great pains to make explicit. Adding it to the language would be a disaster.

wpietri 5y ago

It only helps to the extent that being forced to really think about the data is net useful. In conditions of high volatility, that's not always the case. If I create some throwaway prototype to test a hypothesis based on talking to a few users and then test it on a dozen more users, I don't want to think a ton about the domain. The sheaf of possibilities is often quite large, and narrowing down the possibilities requires better understanding of the users and the things we're creating for them. That understanding is only available in the future, and we only get to that future by making something. I really do love designing clear, expressive type systems. But the beginning of the project is when we know the very least about what will happen, so it's the worst time to invest in those type systems. It can be fine anyhow if the domain is stable and well-understood. Which I gather is Go's sweet spot, and I'm fine with that.