4 ms·
I'd add "well designed" to the standard library point. When I first started using Go, one of the things that struck me was that not only was there tons of stan
by heleninboodler 4y ago
I'd add "well designed" to the standard library point. When I first started using Go, one of the things that struck me was that not only was there tons of standard library functionality to do things I'd normally have to install 3rd party modules for in other languages, but those standard library modules (mostly) had well-designed, easy-to-use, and consistent interfaces. Mostly. I'll still never forgive them for making crypto.PublicKey an empty interface.
- dividedbyzero 4y agoI don't think Go's stdlib is particularly well-designed. It's not bad, not at all, but it doesn't seem to stick out in that respect.
- 0des 4y agoWhat's wrong with it?
- saghm 4y agoI haven't used Go in a while, but I remember there was some pain when `Context` began being used for a lot of new APIs but couldn't be introduced to older APIs for compatibility reasons. I also had some frustrations with what seemed like overfitting with standard libraries interfaces, e.g. the interface for closing something returning an error, so then every `close` method would return an error even if it was always nil (which stuck out more to me given that interfaces in Go are implicit, so it wouldn't really be that big a deal to just have a separate interface for closing things without returning an error and no code would have to be changed in all the places that would use it).