3 ms·
> To me that makes Go unusual, and for a language that cares greatly about being accessible, unusual choices like this seem silly I might agree with you if the
by euroderf 2y ago
> To me that makes Go unusual, and for a language that cares greatly about being accessible, unusual choices like this seem silly
I might agree with you if the UC/LC innovation were burdensome to "implement" (i.e. to remember). But, well, it's about as burdensome as understanding that on Unix, a filename that starts with a dot is normally hidden. In other words: instantly grokable and memorable.
- crackrook 2y agoI don't mean to nitpick but I'm not arguing that it's burdensome or difficult to remember. I meant it when I said: > once you know what the rule is I agree that it makes access control obvious The rule is memorable and grokable, I agree with you! I don't use "silly" to characterize it as the wrong choice, I strictly mean it's a quizzical choice. Using your hidden file analogy in Unix: if I were to invent a new file system and I decided to use lower case letters to represent hidden files instead of borrowing the "." convention, wouldn't that strike you as a silly choice given the ubiquity of Unix-like filesystems?
- euroderf 2y agoUnix has a hegemony that Go doesn't. Go can be a playground for the New Jersey Way. But sure, I'll sign on to "quizzical". Mainly I'm glad that in Go there's only two levels of visibility, not 3+. Much easier to reason about. Altho I'll admit to being confused when you mix the two levels in the names of a struct and its fields.