5 ms·
Oh yeah totally agree. I don't understand why someone would want to write `slices.Contains(s, needle)` when you can write this beautiful poem like a Shakespeare
by wannabe44 3mo ago
Oh yeah totally agree. I don't understand why someone would want to write `slices.Contains(s, needle)` when you can write this beautiful poem like a Shakespeare in VSCode:
found := false
for _, v := range s {
if v == needle {
found = true
break
}
}
Oh and I totally want to build a stack trace manually. It's like doing cardio to me.
if err != nil {
return fmt.Errorf("my function name but in spaces: %w", err);
}
This is very elegant by the way, so that we need errors.Is now, which has to dynamically check if the error implements Unwrap() error or Unwrap() []error. Because having any language facilities for error handling is harmful.
- logicchains 3mo agoYour handwritten one has a major performance bug: found := false for _, v := range s { if v == needle { found = true break } } Do you see it? It copies the v into a local variable, which could be tremendously wasteful if it's a large struct. You should instead be taking a pointer to s[i] and comparing the value there with `needle`. If you'd used `slices.Contains(s, needle)`, on the other hand, it could have such a performance bug in it and you'd never know.
- mathisfun123 3mo ago> on the other hand, it could have such a performance bug in it and you'd never know. wut...? the debate isn't between closed (incompetent) source and open (competent) source - the debate is between verbose language and expressive language.
- kajman 3mo ago> If you'd used `slices.Contains(s, needle)`, on the other hand, it could have such a performance bug in it and you'd never know. Perhaps you're much better at programming than I am, but I prefer these semantics in a language because I figure they're much more likely to have been optimized empirically, support vectorization, and be less buggy than another rote loop I'm trying to speed through.
- asdf88990 3mo agoThat is just a silly rationalisation by primitivists, and they will never be able to articulate any rational point where abstracts makes sense, in their world, whatever Russ Cox and a bunch of Google employees deem fit is the ideal. Even when Russ Cox and Go team had come to term with reality and stopped pretending like we are in 70s still, these lot will move goalposts. It is a kind of psychosis and sycophancy that is beyond rational discourse.
- pjmlp 3mo agoEven the 70's, that is ignoring what was happening with CLU, Smalltalk, Mesa, Modula-2, PL.8, ML, ...
- boredatoms 3mo agoor contains() could be written by those who can write performant code, ..once
- irq-1 3mo agoYou're right. Just for information, slices.Contains() uses the index, not a copied value. https://cs.opensource.google/go/go/+/refs/tags/go1.26.5:src/slices/slices.go;l=117 https://cs.opensource.google/go/go/+/refs/tags/go1.26.5:src/...
- msie 3mo agoYou forgot to put /s after your post.
- b7e7d855b448 3mo agoI don't say it's perfect, but right in this moment I feel most comfortable with go and I don't mind jumping through a few hoops or writing things multiple times
- TheDong 3mo agoi.e. the blub paradox: https://wiki.c2.com/?BlubParadox https://wiki.c2.com/?BlubParadox
- inigyou 3mo agoSteelman: the extra complexity of languages more powerful than Blub has not been found to be a good tradeoff. Blub is KISS and that's good.
- TheDong 3mo agoThe more common steelman for go is "most programmers are idiots, so a language designed for idiots is a good tradeoffs since it's easier to hire programmers for a codebase in that language" I think that one is true. Like, if you're building something that is able to be successful despite having a poor type system, frequent panics, and difficult to correctly use concurrency primitives, Go is a great language for letting the lowest common denominator programmer be productive. If you're building more serious software, then it can be a very bad tradeoff that destroys your company or product, but you know, that's true of a bunch of languages.
- yoghurtwere 3mo ago> difficult to correctly use concurrency primitives, Rust async has a bad reputation in Rust circles, due to difficulties like deadlocks and poisoning (also regarding the messy panic system Rust has). > Rite of passage for a Rust developer is creating a deadlock through an if-statement.
- inigyou 3mo agoGo is a great language for when you want to just accomplish some server-side business logic with minimal bullshit standing between you and it.
- bayindirh 3mo ago> Because having any language facilities for error handling is harmful. No, making error handling verbose mandatory is meant to make developers do mental cardio and be mindful of what they are doing. You can either keep developers mindful or punish them after they make a mistake by shouting at them and make them waste their time during re-compiling. P.S.: Yes, I love Go's error handling mechanics, which makes handling errors mandatory, not optional, and if you ignore the error, this is a deliberate choice and the burden is on the developer. Go does the former, Rust does the latter.
- sapiogram 3mo agoWhat are you talking about, only Rust actually forces you to handle errors. Go functions merely return a tuple with an error along with the result, with a convention that you must checktror a non-nil error before using the result. Rust bakes this into the type system, a function can truly return a result or an error.
- bayindirh 3mo ago> with a convention that you must checktror a non-nil error before using the result. So, you handle the error in the end, or forcefully and intentionally ignore it. Again, if the code goes boom, it's on the developer, not on Go. > Rust bakes this into the type system, a function can truly return a result or an error. Error being a variable or baked into the type system doesn't change the practical result. You must handle the error or purposefully ignore it. > only Rust actually forces you to handle errors. When you have two programming languages which makes you handle the error, the word only becomes a little invalid. Semantics doesn't change the result. You have to acknowledge and act on the error either way.
- resonious 3mo ago> if the code goes boom, it's on the developer This is the same argument C (and Zig!) people have for manual memory management. You can avoid memory problems by being a good developer.
- akerl_ 3mo agoThis comment could make the same point and be even more effective if wasn't written as a snarky retort in violation of several of the guidelines of the site ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html )
- kubb 3mo agoI think the GP deserves the snark. Uncritical praise of everything about a language isn’t intellectual curiosity.
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- TACIXAT 3mo agohttps://pkg.go.dev/slices#Contains https://pkg.go.dev/slices#Contains ? Also, if error wrapping hurts you so much (I don't use it), just implement a project-specific error that works how you want. This could be something that is JSON serializable, that captures a line number at each return site, etc. It will take like 10 minutes to get your project's errors working exactly how you want. My projects usually do - log.SetFlags(log.LstdFlags | log.Lshortfile) // ... if err != nil { log.Println(err) return errors.New("Error doing the thing.") } That essentially logs a stack trace with line numbers up the whole error chain, each return adding the outer context. I only ever use errors.Is for os.ErrNotExist.
- wannabe44 3mo agoI know about slices module. But GP is not happy about generics apparently. I think your error solution is good. But still it's a poor imitation of Exceptions wherein you have to capture the stack trace manually, possibly incuring a perf hit (haven't measured), and write handling code in every layer. Made worse by the fact that people return desperate errors for even precondition violations which should be panics.
- hoppp 3mo ago1. There is nothing stopping you from implementing a Contains function. 2.That error handling is one of the best features. It makes me explicitly acknowledge the errors instead of letting them just happen. No error goes unnoticed! Each if err != nil is an explicit reminder to check, do I need to clean up? Do I need to log this error to a file? "And no more oh an error happened I wonder where" With LLMs verbosity is not an excuse anymore. Just generate it and focus on other things then