5 ms·
Sadly I agree with the author on the general feel of Go libraries. I can feel the language design itself and non-written philosophical identity of Go strongly a
by Zopieux 4y ago
Sadly I agree with the author on the general feel of Go libraries. I can feel the language design itself and non-written philosophical identity of Go strongly affects what APIs people write in it. Most often, they suck. They feel monolithic, unforgiving, and impossible to extend. I don't belive we can only blame the lack of generics for that, it runs deeper.
On documentation, I've never seen a language community that comes with so little examples most of the time. Take any random Python library RTD, it's full of it. You can skim through said examples to understand the overall features and capabilities before you dive into the API reference. No such luck in Go: here is the bare-bones godoc, good luck!
- mountainriver 4y agoThe bare bones godoc is generally fine because the language is so easy. Python needs the examples because most of the libraries have no types so you would have no idea whats happening without examples
- dragonwriter 4y ago> The bare bones godoc is generally fine because the language is so easy. No, it's not. > Python needs the examples because most of the libraries have no types so you would have no idea whats happening without examples That’s not the main reason examples and narrative explanations in documentation are useful, but if the false belief that it is has helpe to fuel the Python documentation culture, I’m not going to complain too much.