7 ms·

Go gives you the illusion of simplicity because it gets rid of guard rails and error checking. If you remove all error checking, of course your code is going to

Go gives you the illusion of simplicity because it gets rid of guard rails and error checking. If you remove all error checking, of course your code is going to look a lot simpler. It's also going to be a lot more wrong and crashy. Wait until your code base grows, your team grows to >10 developers, and you will understand what I mean. Java (and preferably Kotlin) are a lot more serious about making sure your code is robust before it compiles.

segfaltnh 3y ago
Wait, are you implying Go doesn't have error checking? In what way? It has famously verbose error semantics.
- za3faran 3y ago
  It's verbose yes, but also more error prone.
- _ZeD_ 3y ago
  well... https://github.com/search?q=%22f%2C+_+%3A%3D+%22+language%3Ago&type=code https://github.com/search?q=%22f%2C+_+%3A%3D+%22+language%3A... 98k results...
- coryrc 3y ago
  No exhaustive enum checks. No Option type, so you can still use results of a function if it returns an error.
sgloutnikov 3y ago
I've heard this argument before, and I point out Kubernetes to them. Is that code base complex enough, because it's pure Go doing just fine and runs on plenty of systems?
- troupo 3y ago
  You can point to a complex project in any language, and that would prove nothing.
- kaba0 3y ago
  I mean, that’s pretty much go’s first complex application that was specifically written with that, so don’t think it is a good example.
javcasas 3y ago
> Java (and preferably Kotlin) are a lot more serious about making sure your code is robust before it compiles. You are making great points for Rust, Ocaml and Haskell.
- kaba0 3y ago
  There isn't all that many plus in their type systems that is not expressible in Java. OCaml and Haskell has Monads, sure. There is Scala for that on the JVM.
  - javcasas 3y ago
    > There isn't all that many plus in their type systems that is not expressible in Java. Thanks to Turing, anything that is Turing-complete can duplicate any other thing that is Turing-complete. So, yes, you can do all of Haskell's types in Java. That is not a flex. The flex is doing them in a non-horrific way.
    - kaba0 3y ago
      The kind of Turing completeness certain type systems have is useless beside academic curiosity - look at the vavr library, that’s what I’m talking about. You can have plenty Haskell types without any hacks, except for Monads in Java.
      - javcasas 3y ago
        > vavr - turns java™ upside down "turn X upside down" are different words for "use X contrary to its original intention and design". You will find very few people willing to let go what people undestand as Java so as to be able to do Haskell-in-Java.
        kaba0 3y ago
        It’s goddamn immutable collections and Optionals, not brain surgery come on. It’s not like Java hasn’t been going in the same direction, see records, sum types, pattern matching.

segfaltnh 3y ago

Wait, are you implying Go doesn't have error checking? In what way? It has famously verbose error semantics.

za3faran 3y ago
It's verbose yes, but also more error prone.
_ZeD_ 3y ago
well... https://github.com/search?q=%22f%2C+_+%3A%3D+%22+language%3Ago&type=code https://github.com/search?q=%22f%2C+_+%3A%3D+%22+language%3A... 98k results...
coryrc 3y ago
No exhaustive enum checks. No Option type, so you can still use results of a function if it returns an error.

sgloutnikov 3y ago

I've heard this argument before, and I point out Kubernetes to them. Is that code base complex enough, because it's pure Go doing just fine and runs on plenty of systems?

troupo 3y ago
You can point to a complex project in any language, and that would prove nothing.
kaba0 3y ago
I mean, that’s pretty much go’s first complex application that was specifically written with that, so don’t think it is a good example.

javcasas 3y ago

> Java (and preferably Kotlin) are a lot more serious about making sure your code is robust before it compiles. You are making great points for Rust, Ocaml and Haskell.

kaba0 3y ago
There isn't all that many plus in their type systems that is not expressible in Java. OCaml and Haskell has Monads, sure. There is Scala for that on the JVM.
- javcasas 3y ago
  > There isn't all that many plus in their type systems that is not expressible in Java. Thanks to Turing, anything that is Turing-complete can duplicate any other thing that is Turing-complete. So, yes, you can do all of Haskell's types in Java. That is not a flex. The flex is doing them in a non-horrific way.
  - kaba0 3y ago
    The kind of Turing completeness certain type systems have is useless beside academic curiosity - look at the vavr library, that’s what I’m talking about. You can have plenty Haskell types without any hacks, except for Monads in Java.
    - javcasas 3y ago
      > vavr - turns java™ upside down "turn X upside down" are different words for "use X contrary to its original intention and design". You will find very few people willing to let go what people undestand as Java so as to be able to do Haskell-in-Java.
      - kaba0 3y ago
        It’s goddamn immutable collections and Optionals, not brain surgery come on. It’s not like Java hasn’t been going in the same direction, see records, sum types, pattern matching.