4 ms·

> The program can never reflect the shape of the problem, because it will be riddled with "glue code" that implements the obvious dull steps that you abstract a

> The program can never reflect the shape of the problem, because it will be riddled with "glue code" that implements the obvious dull steps that you abstract away when reasoning. How does this affect readability when one tries to dive into an existing Go project? Is Go code harder to navigate than code in more expressive languages?

nXqd 2y ago
We shouldn't overestimtae the complexity of expressive language like Clojrue vs Go. Go is perfectly simple and easy to follow, even compared with Clojure. If you come from background of Computer Science or programming first, Go is easier to follow.
- kaba0 2y ago
  I always feel this comparison is a fallacy. Assembly is also perfectly simple and easy to follow, like each instruction is trivial. Yet you will fail to grasp the whole, as “you are zoomed in too close”. I feel go has a good scale for many kind of tasks, but at the same time, it lacks the expressivity to change the zoom level, which I feel is needlessly limiting and makes the language a bad language for problems that require a slightly higher level of abstraction.
  - alabhyajindal 2y ago
    I tried Go for a while after coming from JavaScript and didn't feel productive enough. I think this explains why exactly.
ReleaseCandidat 2y ago
Go really is the most "readable" code for anybody who has ever read something C (or Algol ;) like - so just about anybody. The only "strange" stuff is its `iota`, the method syntax and of course channels and goroutines. But that's nowhere comparable to some C++ or Haskell, "type heavy" Typescript or some Lisp macro DSL.
kubb 2y ago
This would depend on the size of the project, and the difficulty of the solved problem. With a simple problem, and a small codebase, Go is easier, because you need to know less language constructs. With a complex problem, and a large codebase, a more expressive language is easier if used properly, because it can highlight what's important in the solution. The ratio of signal to noise when reading code is higher.

nXqd 2y ago

We shouldn't overestimtae the complexity of expressive language like Clojrue vs Go. Go is perfectly simple and easy to follow, even compared with Clojure. If you come from background of Computer Science or programming first, Go is easier to follow.

kaba0 2y ago
I always feel this comparison is a fallacy. Assembly is also perfectly simple and easy to follow, like each instruction is trivial. Yet you will fail to grasp the whole, as “you are zoomed in too close”. I feel go has a good scale for many kind of tasks, but at the same time, it lacks the expressivity to change the zoom level, which I feel is needlessly limiting and makes the language a bad language for problems that require a slightly higher level of abstraction.
- alabhyajindal 2y ago
  I tried Go for a while after coming from JavaScript and didn't feel productive enough. I think this explains why exactly.

ReleaseCandidat 2y ago

Go really is the most "readable" code for anybody who has ever read something C (or Algol ;) like - so just about anybody. The only "strange" stuff is its `iota`, the method syntax and of course channels and goroutines. But that's nowhere comparable to some C++ or Haskell, "type heavy" Typescript or some Lisp macro DSL.

kubb 2y ago

This would depend on the size of the project, and the difficulty of the solved problem. With a simple problem, and a small codebase, Go is easier, because you need to know less language constructs. With a complex problem, and a large codebase, a more expressive language is easier if used properly, because it can highlight what's important in the solution. The ratio of signal to noise when reading code is higher.