3 ms·

> it’s an anti-pattern for libraries to start their own goroutines. Best practices dictate that you should perform your work synchronously and let the caller de

> it’s an anti-pattern for libraries to start their own goroutines. Best practices dictate that you should perform your work synchronously and let the caller decide if they want it to be asynchronous. This line reminded me that we all need to beware of the "anti-pattern" police. Some develpers use this term effectively by explaining precisely why something is an "anti-pattern". But more often it's used as a way to shut down conversation and any actual critical thinking. There's a lot of nuance behind what makes something an "anti-pattern", and simply declaring something an anti-pattern isn't enough. "This is an anti-pattern and this is why ..." is enough. But I still avoid using the term regardless. FYI I'm not saying the author is the anti-pattern police, but it does sound like they've found themselves on the police's radar.

chemcube 3y ago
Hey. Author here. Yeah, the Go style guide at Google (the setting for the dcode review) is quite prescriptive. I don't mind labeling things "anti-patterns". It doesn't mean there's a law against using said pattern (if you're in a healthy org). It just means you should be able to justify why you go against the guideline. The whole reason I was comfortable attempting that approach in the first place is because I had successfully used that pattern before and was able to provide a rationale. It just happens that this case differed enough that using this pattern would've been unwise. You're right that things shouldn't just be classed as an anti-pattern without explaining why. And that's enforced in most Go-heavy orgs at Google. If you're gonna say something is bad without providing an explanation and linking to the relevant sources, the comment is likely to be closed or argued. I didn't provide an explanation for why this is considered an anti-pattern in this post because that wasn't the topic. But it appears most persons here are interested in that, so maybe I'll write a post on that next week :)

chemcube 3y ago

Hey. Author here. Yeah, the Go style guide at Google (the setting for the dcode review) is quite prescriptive. I don't mind labeling things "anti-patterns". It doesn't mean there's a law against using said pattern (if you're in a healthy org). It just means you should be able to justify why you go against the guideline. The whole reason I was comfortable attempting that approach in the first place is because I had successfully used that pattern before and was able to provide a rationale. It just happens that this case differed enough that using this pattern would've been unwise. You're right that things shouldn't just be classed as an anti-pattern without explaining why. And that's enforced in most Go-heavy orgs at Google. If you're gonna say something is bad without providing an explanation and linking to the relevant sources, the comment is likely to be closed or argued. I didn't provide an explanation for why this is considered an anti-pattern in this post because that wasn't the topic. But it appears most persons here are interested in that, so maybe I'll write a post on that next week :)