4 ms·

Fair criticism, it's my main gripe with Go as well - it's not strict enough when it comes to e.g. nil, enums, and type safety. Annotations are supported but the

Fair criticism, it's my main gripe with Go as well - it's not strict enough when it comes to e.g. nil, enums, and type safety. Annotations are supported but they're just strings. Projects require additional tooling / linters to check for things like unchecked errors and many more "gotchas" that I think could (should?) be part of the compiler or standard tools. Trivial example, Go's compiler will error when you have an unused variable, but won't if you reuse and overwrite an error variable a dozen times and only handle it once. But on the other hand, I suppose it makes it a bit more pragmatic - less checks makes for a faster compiler, and fast compilation was/is very high up in the language's requirements and motivation. If you want / need more strictness in your language, there's Rust, Java, C#, etc.

larodi 2mo ago
How about Swift and Erlang? Why are these always left out of comparisons?
- byward 2mo ago
  Haven’t you heard? Swift is the first-ever corporate programming language, and we on HN can’t take its community efforts seriously to the extent of considering its potential value in general-purpose software. /s
  - larodi 2mo ago
    I see it as a great language being driven (fw atm) by same buy who did Rust, no? And my take really is that the fact they were no good corpo created languages (GO is not one or what?), then it is totally fine to some big corpo like the much-disloved-yet-selling-shitloads-of-phones Apple to actually do something which benefits the world and does not incur costs ojn it.
dnautics 2mo ago
i never run into these issues in >100k loc of productionized llm generated elixir (nil safety, type issues). i wonder, is there something architecturally in go that makes this a particular problem?
- za3faran 2mo ago
  Up until quite recently, golang lacked generics, so `interface{}` was passed everywhere. It does not have typesafe enums (you can pass integers and it will compile). It has no way of declaring immutable structures. It does not have pattern matching.
  - Mawr 2mo ago
    > It does not have typesafe enums (you can pass integers and it will compile). sigh. Sure, if you literally pass an untyped, hard-coded integer, like so: foo(100) then, and only then will it compile. However, this won't: a := 100 foo(a) How horrific.

larodi 2mo ago

How about Swift and Erlang? Why are these always left out of comparisons?

byward 2mo ago
Haven’t you heard? Swift is the first-ever corporate programming language, and we on HN can’t take its community efforts seriously to the extent of considering its potential value in general-purpose software. /s
- larodi 2mo ago
  I see it as a great language being driven (fw atm) by same buy who did Rust, no? And my take really is that the fact they were no good corpo created languages (GO is not one or what?), then it is totally fine to some big corpo like the much-disloved-yet-selling-shitloads-of-phones Apple to actually do something which benefits the world and does not incur costs ojn it.

dnautics 2mo ago

i never run into these issues in >100k loc of productionized llm generated elixir (nil safety, type issues). i wonder, is there something architecturally in go that makes this a particular problem?

za3faran 2mo ago
Up until quite recently, golang lacked generics, so `interface{}` was passed everywhere. It does not have typesafe enums (you can pass integers and it will compile). It has no way of declaring immutable structures. It does not have pattern matching.
- Mawr 2mo ago
  > It does not have typesafe enums (you can pass integers and it will compile). sigh. Sure, if you literally pass an untyped, hard-coded integer, like so: foo(100) then, and only then will it compile. However, this won't: a := 100 foo(a) How horrific.