5 ms·

It has a massive threshold for beginners for sure. Personally I have a background in C/C++ and moved towards C#, Go, JS etc. With an interest in many more, but

by gdcbe 3y ago

It has a massive threshold for beginners for sure. Personally I have a background in C/C++ and moved towards C#, Go, JS etc. With an interest in many more, but the above were my main languages for a decennia. 9 years ago I picked up Go, and have used it the most as my main language since then. 7 Years ago I picked up Rust, but only since 6 months ago really intensive (including publishing the guide that came out of my experience at https://rust-lang.guide/ https://rust-lang.guide/). Over those 7 years I've only done a production project around the start of that journey and now since 6 months ago I'm writing production code in it again and haven't stopped since. But I've learned the language like 3 different times in that journey. It's not an easy one to get into. A lot of things to wrap your head around, especially if your goal is to really master it, rather then just "woohoo I can compile my program". I still not master it, but I do feel now fluent in it and can express my ideas well. There are also no more fights with the language or its tooling. Compared to that, Go(lang) is super easy to get into. Ridiculously easy. Perhaps too easy. You can give it to a programmer of any level, and they probably can ship their first feature that same day. The difference is however, that. First of all with Golang it's super easy to ship code with nil pointer exceptions in it or data races. I've seen it in the best code bases. And sure, plenty of people will tell if you do it "right" you'll have no issues. I've hear similar comments from ex-colleagues still in the C++ world as well. Secondly, Golang is very opinionated and if you derive in ideas or needs a bit from what they want you to do, you are in a bit of a problem. This has been slightly improved, but it's still very limited and still a lot of magic that only built-in features can perform. And thirdly, the language is very minmal (Golang). So codebases look very verbose very quickly. Also harder to express ideas (as error support is limited, and sum types are not a thing, neither are other things like pattern matchings). It's also a lot less "functional". This is not to compare Golang vs Rust too much, even though I did. My point was more, and I probably butcher my own comment not making that point well, is that I think it's fair to have a massive threshold for beginners to get into a programming language. As long as in return it means you get a very powerful tool in rerturn to do some of your work. And Rust is def. such a tool. Many people boast about how peformant it is. And while that is true, it is for me for most projects more of an extra benefit rather than the things I really like it for. What I like with Rust is that it gives me really high confidence in my code (comparable to projects I've written in Elm and Haskell in the past). When my project compiles I really am pretty confident it will not give me runtime surprises beyond mistakes elsewhere (e.g. infrastructure choices). It's a very expressive language and pleasant to use in that way. And then there is of course the fact that it is truly FOSS, has a very nice community, great documentation and a lot of excellent learning resources. I am not a fanboy of much, neither of Rust, but I do really appreciate its existence and I am happy to use it where it suits. Yes it is a massive threshold, but one worth to pay.

bheadmaster 3y ago
> And sure, plenty of people will tell if you do it "right" you'll have no issues. Go is inspired a lot by CSP, and allows you to apply CSP calculus when using goroutines and channels. It doesn't make it impossible to make mistakes, but it does give you tools needed to reason about your concurrent program, which is more than can be said of most other languages' concurrency support.
- dontlaugh 3y ago
  And yet goroutines share the same address space, don’t have a good way for the parent to wait for them and even panic silently. There’s a reason many projects ban the go keyword in favour of a wrapper that fixes some of this. Go requires constant vigilance, sadly.
  - bheadmaster 3y ago
    Yes, as I said, Go doesn't make it impossible to make mistakes. It doesn't hold your hand and slap you when you go off-road. But saying it "requires constant vigilance" is an overstatement. As long as you put a little bit of thought in the concurrent code you're writing, it's very easy to do things right. Data races are easy to avoid if you only transfer ownership by sending pointers through channels.
    - dontlaugh 3y ago
      It would’ve been trivial to make the language disallow nil, separate goroutine address spaces, crash the process on unhandled panic in any goroutine, etc. The reason Go annoys people is the unforced errors. Sure, it gets a lot right. But what it gets wrong had solutions long before Go existed and those solutions were wilfully ignored.
      - bheadmaster 3y ago
        > It would’ve been trivial to make the language disallow nil Which would interfere with Go's philosophy that zero should be a valid (usable) state for types. What would be the default value of a reference type without nil? > separate goroutine address spaces This is not trivial to implement. The only way I can think of is to start each goroutine in a new process, which brings along other downsides - everything must be copied, cannot pass file/socket handlers between goroutines, etc. Doesn't seem to be worth it. > crash the process on unhandled panic in any goroutine Go does crash the process on unhandled panic in any goroutine: # main.go package main func main() { go func() { panic("hehe") }() for { } } # go run main.go panic: hehe goroutine 5 [running]: main.main.func1() /[...]/main.go:5 +0x27 created by main.main /[...]/main.go:4 +0x25 exit status 2 > The reason Go annoys people is the unforced errors. This is the criticism I've also had, and raised an issue on GitHub. Unfortunately, it's impossible to fix this without breaking backwards compatibility. > But what it gets wrong had solutions long before Go existed and those solutions were wilfully ignored. They were wilfully ignored, but only because the tradeoffs didn't seem worth it at the moment. You make it sound bad, as if Go devs were simply high on crack and knew what they doing was wrong, but did it anyways, when in reality it's more of a case of those "solutions" not being compatible with the goals of the language, or simply nobody coming up with an elegant way to incorporate it.

by gdcbe 3y ago

bheadmaster 3y ago

> And sure, plenty of people will tell if you do it "right" you'll have no issues. Go is inspired a lot by CSP, and allows you to apply CSP calculus when using goroutines and channels. It doesn't make it impossible to make mistakes, but it does give you tools needed to reason about your concurrent program, which is more than can be said of most other languages' concurrency support.

dontlaugh 3y ago
And yet goroutines share the same address space, don’t have a good way for the parent to wait for them and even panic silently. There’s a reason many projects ban the go keyword in favour of a wrapper that fixes some of this. Go requires constant vigilance, sadly.
- bheadmaster 3y ago
  Yes, as I said, Go doesn't make it impossible to make mistakes. It doesn't hold your hand and slap you when you go off-road. But saying it "requires constant vigilance" is an overstatement. As long as you put a little bit of thought in the concurrent code you're writing, it's very easy to do things right. Data races are easy to avoid if you only transfer ownership by sending pointers through channels.
  - dontlaugh 3y ago
    It would’ve been trivial to make the language disallow nil, separate goroutine address spaces, crash the process on unhandled panic in any goroutine, etc. The reason Go annoys people is the unforced errors. Sure, it gets a lot right. But what it gets wrong had solutions long before Go existed and those solutions were wilfully ignored.
    - bheadmaster 3y ago
      > It would’ve been trivial to make the language disallow nil Which would interfere with Go's philosophy that zero should be a valid (usable) state for types. What would be the default value of a reference type without nil? > separate goroutine address spaces This is not trivial to implement. The only way I can think of is to start each goroutine in a new process, which brings along other downsides - everything must be copied, cannot pass file/socket handlers between goroutines, etc. Doesn't seem to be worth it. > crash the process on unhandled panic in any goroutine Go does crash the process on unhandled panic in any goroutine: # main.go package main func main() { go func() { panic("hehe") }() for { } } # go run main.go panic: hehe goroutine 5 [running]: main.main.func1() /[...]/main.go:5 +0x27 created by main.main /[...]/main.go:4 +0x25 exit status 2 > The reason Go annoys people is the unforced errors. This is the criticism I've also had, and raised an issue on GitHub. Unfortunately, it's impossible to fix this without breaking backwards compatibility. > But what it gets wrong had solutions long before Go existed and those solutions were wilfully ignored. They were wilfully ignored, but only because the tradeoffs didn't seem worth it at the moment. You make it sound bad, as if Go devs were simply high on crack and knew what they doing was wrong, but did it anyways, when in reality it's more of a case of those "solutions" not being compatible with the goals of the language, or simply nobody coming up with an elegant way to incorporate it.