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

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 :)