Nice article. I’m still getting used to go so it’s good to have this resorce! I find the go tour a bit lacking on details on the subject of interfaces. Go’s approach to interfaces is also one of the language’s breaks from convention that confuses me. The implict implementation approach, imo, actually hurts ubderstanding when reading code instead of helping. I sort of get the idea that using the implicit approach enables greater decoupling between interfaces and implementors, but it also does a poor job at signaling intent. it’s kind of nice to be able to start at the top of some type/class/whatever declaration and see that the author inteds it to implement the methods defined by foo interface, vs having to read the individual func defs, parse the somewhat syntactically odd func (T) arguments to comprehend that the function refers to this type (defined elsewhere) and implements this interface method (defined elsewhere). But it may be totally fine once I get used to it.

It’s almost like using a language that really wants to be only imperative but begrudgingly introduces support for minimal oop. In spite of this though, it’s still a pretty great language and I have a lot of fun reading and using it. Some of it’s other patterns and decisisons, such as the v, ok := expresions I find quite delightful to read and use in practice.