3 ms·
Seth Vargo recently wrote a pretty good summary[0] of things he’d like to see changed in a theoretical Go 2.0. I don’t strictly agree with everything he says, b
by ovao 5y ago
Seth Vargo recently wrote a pretty good summary[0] of things he’d like to see changed in a theoretical Go 2.0. I don’t strictly agree with everything he says, but it’s all pretty sensible and well thought out. (Interestingly, he also critiques Go’s anemic logging options.)
[0]: https://www.sethvargo.com/what-id-like-to-see-in-go-2/ https://www.sethvargo.com/what-id-like-to-see-in-go-2/
Associated HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30205232 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30205232
- bediger4000 5y agoThanks. I'd read that one previously, and had much the same "this is a grab bag of idiosyncratic gripes" to it, too. The "don't copy range values" one is particularly indicative. I think the whole point of copying range's values is to avoid all the ugly, ugly problems with modifying the object being iterated over if you don't copy them. Wishing for real references to the iterated-upon object in a range is one of those things that you should maybe think about before asking the genie for it.