3 ms·

Go most definitely allows annotations on structure fields [1]. You say the language is stuck in the 70s, but the GP has a quote from the Go authors saying that

Go most definitely allows annotations on structure fields [1]. You say the language is stuck in the 70s, but the GP has a quote from the Go authors saying that having the compiler reorder structure fields is a 1970s problem... Well anyway, mostly it just sounds like the typical Rust enthusiast "How dare you have a strongly-held opinion that differs from my strongly-held opinion". As someone who used to work on a codebase that had to be portable across X86, Alpha, SPARC, and Itanium, paying attention to structure field order quickly becomes a routine matter. It hardly seems worthy of an argument over the merits of a programming language. [1] https://pkg.go.dev/reflect#StructTag https://pkg.go.dev/reflect#StructTag

adwn 5y ago
> Well anyway, mostly it just sounds like the typical Rust enthusiast "How dare you have a strongly-held opinion that differs from my strongly-held opinion" To the contrary, it sounds like "Here's a solution that gives better results in 99% of cases, for reasons X, Y, Z, and better control and guarantees in those other 1% of cases."
Ar-Curunir 5y ago
No need to be defensive, I was merely suggesting one approach, and didn't even criticize Go anywhere in my comment.
rsecora 5y ago
Its not really a 70s problem, its a solution to a problem if the 1970s. RISC machines raised bus error if not properly aligned to avoid "double" access to the same value. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_error#Unaligned_access https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_error#Unaligned_access