3 ms·

I'd particularly recommend "Meet the Go team". Some really interesting questions, and most importantly answers. In the video :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

I'd particularly recommend "Meet the Go team". Some really interesting questions, and most importantly answers. In the video :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sln-gJaURzk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sln-gJaURzk

frou_dh 14y ago
I liked the sense that Go 1.0 was a genuinely meaningful milestone, and feature talk is taking a back seat to actually using it in anger for a while.
- zura 14y ago
  If it only had generics... that would make it a really viable option.
  - luriel 14y ago
    Have you actually built any real projects in Go? Because pretty much everyone I know who has tried (and who has learned enough Go to write minimally idiomatic code) has found this to be a non-issue. Not all languages are the same, and not every "feature" makes as much sense in every language.
    - zura 14y ago
      Before using it in a real project, it is obvious to do some research, isn't it? So some questions and concerns arise, naturally. Regarding generics, I really don't like what Go offers instead [1]. By the way, creators themselves haven't eliminated the chance of adding generics in later versions of the language [2]. Also, I don't understand why not have destructors (deterministic, not the finalizer...) in many cases where currently `defer` is used. I also don't like the trick you have to do for checking the interface integrity [3]. All in all, I have a sympathy for Go, lets see what will happen in 2.0. [1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6255720/making-generic-algorithms-in-go/9651473#9651473 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6255720/making-generic-al... [2] http://golang.org/doc/go_faq.html#generics http://golang.org/doc/go_faq.html#generics [3] http://golang.org/src/pkg/encoding/json/stream.go#L187 http://golang.org/src/pkg/encoding/json/stream.go#L187
    - jongraehl 14y ago
      Go advocates and sympathizers would do well to drop this fully general riposte.
kinghajj 14y ago
Does anyone know more about the virus written in Go that was mentioned in this talk?
- luriel 14y ago
  ken knows more ;)

frou_dh 14y ago

I liked the sense that Go 1.0 was a genuinely meaningful milestone, and feature talk is taking a back seat to actually using it in anger for a while.

zura 14y ago
If it only had generics... that would make it a really viable option.
- luriel 14y ago
  Have you actually built any real projects in Go? Because pretty much everyone I know who has tried (and who has learned enough Go to write minimally idiomatic code) has found this to be a non-issue. Not all languages are the same, and not every "feature" makes as much sense in every language.
  - zura 14y ago
    Before using it in a real project, it is obvious to do some research, isn't it? So some questions and concerns arise, naturally. Regarding generics, I really don't like what Go offers instead [1]. By the way, creators themselves haven't eliminated the chance of adding generics in later versions of the language [2]. Also, I don't understand why not have destructors (deterministic, not the finalizer...) in many cases where currently `defer` is used. I also don't like the trick you have to do for checking the interface integrity [3]. All in all, I have a sympathy for Go, lets see what will happen in 2.0. [1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6255720/making-generic-algorithms-in-go/9651473#9651473 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6255720/making-generic-al... [2] http://golang.org/doc/go_faq.html#generics http://golang.org/doc/go_faq.html#generics [3] http://golang.org/src/pkg/encoding/json/stream.go#L187 http://golang.org/src/pkg/encoding/json/stream.go#L187
  - jongraehl 14y ago
    Go advocates and sympathizers would do well to drop this fully general riposte.

kinghajj 14y ago

Does anyone know more about the virus written in Go that was mentioned in this talk?

luriel 14y ago
ken knows more ;)