The article title is "Executable examples in Go". You shouldn't editorialize titles, especially when it makes the title significantly worse.
Edit: seems the article title has changed or is A/B tested so never mind I guess (can't delete since there are replies), but it's still not a "secret".
I hypothesize that a very simple and easy-to-make mistake created this situation, and it is as simple as this: Godoc collapses the examples. Behind undistinguished links. Look at the current rendering for the documentation for net/http, the core HTTP package: https://pkg.go.dev/net/http Your challenge is to scroll through the package with the scrollbar, looking for the Examples.
Of course, if enough people try this, some will find them quickly. Someone will simply jerk their mouse and scroll right to it in a quarter of a second, of course. But in general, they're not easy to find, even when I'm telling you to look for them. If you don't even know they are there they are super easy to miss. The main listing for the examples is between the Index and the Constants. In the left section breakdown, they don't get their own top-level section but are instead by default buried unexpanded below Index, where I would personally assert they don't belong. Even if you scroll to the documentation for a specific function that includes an example, such as Hijacker: https://pkg.go.dev/net/http#Hijacker , I think it's very easy to be scanning through and miss the little Example link in all the noise. And again, in this context I'm calling your attention to it; in normal circumstances I think link blindness kicks in and people can read these docs for years without catching them.
And then of course even if you do catch them it's easy to come away thinking it must be something special the standard library can do but you can't, because that is a Go thing, and so few 3rd party packages avail themselves of this. But you can easily do them yourself. It's little more than a slightly specially-formatted test function.
https://go.dev/doc/faq#go_or_golang
I use “golang” for clarity all the time, and I’m sure many others do as well. There’s no ambiguity you’re talking about the language then.
The thing is that the article title uses Go while the submission here uses Golang. I wouldn't be too happy if someone submitted one of my articles and changed words like that, especially if it's to something I dislike. That's also why I complained about the editorializing in the first place, because I'd be a bit peeved if someone added something like "best-kept secret" in there (but the article title changed, so that's now a moot point).
Conversely, I'd also never change "golang" to "Go" when submitting something.
gus_leonel appears to be a pseudonym for the author of the post. They have essentially no comments and most of their submissions are related to this Bitfield Consulting. So it's the author editorializing their own submission titles.
I also get into a habit of “Rust lang” because of the video game.
Yes, I could do a bunch of search engine customization stuff or pick someone else’s favourite engine. But this is simpler.
Yeah, the names don’t match, but out of all of the things they submitted, at least half are articles from this site.
But beyond that, I mean, does it matter? You might not appreciate it, sure, but you’re also not the original author. I’d get the argument if the author came in and said it, but at this point this just seems like complaining for complaining’s sake and you not agreeing with the phrasing used in the article or submission title. That’s certainly your opinion to have, but is there any benefit to expressing it? This doesn’t seem like a relevant discussion about the article contents.
Well, no, but I'd rather not assume anything: just let the author pick the title.
(I assumed that "gus_leonel" wasn't the author, since John Arundel has his own HN account under his regular "bitfield" username, but they do post a lot from bitfieldconsulting, so idk).
All this discussion seems to be doing is derailing the comment threads. Almost half the comments here are not about the article itself but your opinions on the words used in the title.
This is also a funny way to not assume anything:
> (I assumed that “gus_leonel” wasn’t the author
> Well no, but I’d rather not assume anything
I don’t see the benefit of this discussion existing in the first place, let alone continuing it, so I’m going to stop here.
Most won't know it's posted, or won't see until after it no longer matters. "Don't editorialize" is the simplest and surest way to respect the original author.
"Don't editorialize titles unless the original title is very nondescript or clickbait-y" is not a controversial HN policy.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230117212610/https://bitfieldc...
This is an interesting conundrum. Clearly the new title was chosen because it sounds more alluring; I mean, it hit the front page. But also, the OP could've easily done this prior to submitting and it would be totally normal, since people adjust article and post titles all the time.
Does come off as mildly sneaky when you do it in this order, but maybe I'm just nitpicky.