3 ms·

It's the kind of behavior that needs to get left behind. goformat is easier to understand than 'gofmt'. 3 characters.

• gloob 17y ago
  It's the kind of behavior that needs to get left behind. Why? This smacks of religion to me. goformat is easier to understand than 'gofmt'. Only if you can't be arsed to learn the language or tools. If the fact that the tool has a different name than you would like is that troublesome, symlink or alias it. Would it be better if I had to type out 'secure-file-transport-protocol' in the shell instead of 'sftp'?
  • ThinkWriteMute 17y ago
    Yes, compare the 31 character to 4 character acronym to something that isnt: An acronym or very long at all.
  • aaronblohowiak 17y ago
    "Why? This smacks of religion to me." The dogma of explicit names is preferable to the dogma of legacy. "Only if you can't be arsed to learn the language or tools." I contend that resolving fmt to format increases the complexity in reading and learning Go. Complexity is only tolerable when it provides benefit. The two proposed benefits are token brevity and legacy. I do not believe that preserving the legacy names of commands and packages is a benefit for a "new systems programming language" that is intended to replace the very legacy it is preserving.
    • jongraehl 17y ago
      What a fantastic bikeshed* we have here. * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinsons_Law_of_Triviality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinsons_Law_of_Triviality
• cpr 17y ago
  Also, "fmt" is an old Unix formatting command, which name "gofmt" builds on. There's history there.