I wasn't aiming for that. My point is more: I know Go already, it's good enough for my purposes, so I'm using that as my hammer. I could just as well have been Java or C# I learned eight years ago and used that for everything. :)
Go is perfectly boring and simple, and seems to get out of my way. At least, that's how it feels as a newcomer. I'm sure it will change over time, but I'm having a blast at the moment.
Plus OO has its own advantages, even if you don't use it all that much, its one of the best ways to fit problems into neat design patterns.
Go seems to be missing those features.
But by now most programers are so very used to making the language do a lot of error handling kind of chores that having to do them manually kind of feels doing work that shouldn't be done(Like doing what the language should have been doing).
Of course you could bolt OO onto Go. In a way similar to how Perl provides kind of bare bones means assemble a OO system. But that is not the point, having syntax to this baked into the language just makes it easier and standardised to learn and use well.
Perhaps Go is Perl done right? Than a replace for Python.
But one has to see for how long it can maintain its minimalism. On the longer run code turns to be as complicated as the problem you are trying to solve. Removing the features doesn't make the code simple, it simply make it explicit(a.k.a Verbose)
It's pretty bad, but it turns out that exceptions and inverting my entire program to pass into a Result's flatmap chain are even worse.
When they come up with another strategy, I'll try that instead, but until then I'll keep using the least bad option I've found.
Based on what? Exceptions do the sensible thing at all times: auto-bubbling up (no random swallowing), contain info about its origin, and a handler can be specified as tightly or widely as necessary.
It’s objectively superior to grepping for an error message, or straight up not doing anything which go is especially prone to do, as after a time all the if errs become just visual noise.
My experience using all three.
> no random swallowing
We have not been in the same codebases, apparently. The number of times I've come across (I'm paraphrasing):
try {
// some stuff that can fail
// bonus points if there's a comment explaining why it can't error in practice
} catch (Exception e) {}
As verbose as `if err != nil { return nil, err }` is, the fact that it gets banged out so much means people default to it, and I find myself less likely to get into a weird partially initialized state in go than I have been in other languages.
> It’s objectively superior to grepping for an error message
Then use `errors.Is`?
Go also supports most of the typical attributes of oo. It has polymorphism and encapsulation it’s just missing inheritance and uses composition instead. Most Java and C# code basis have stayed away from inheritance (for a long time) so there isn’t that big a difference.
I only know exceptions from Java myself, and in practice, what it calls exceptions are often... well, not exceptions at all. Files missing, SQL queries returning no errors, division by zero are not exceptional situations, but normal day to day events. And an exception generates a stack trace, which is an expensive operation.
I mean one way to avoiding that is defensive programming - check if a file exists, do a count on the SQL query first, do a pre-check or assertion before dividing - but that adds more and more code that you need to write, test and maintain.
OO has merit for what you describe, but Go's alternative works just as well (imo) for that purpose; you have struct types containing data, you can add methods to those types to encapsulate behaviour. Go doesn't have OO inheritance, but inheritance has been out of fashion for years now so it's not missed.
TL;DR, exceptions and OO are solutions to problems, Go has its own solutions to those problems, neither of which are difficult to understand.
Nothing much has changed in terms of problems and interfaces. So the errors will remain the same.
Now when you use go, you will have to write a lot of code that other wise the language+tooling could do automatically for you. This is just doing work that you shouldn't even be doing the first place and pointless verbosity.
Minimal is not always better. And some parts just feel like they were omitted because the language designer didn't want to do the work for you. Whereas the whole point of a programming language is that it does as much work for you as it possibly can and make it easier for you.
Just saying writing the same/similar code over and over again is waste work.
Sometimes it works out. Certainly encoding/json in the Go standard library shows that it's quite acceptable to use where appropriate – the programming tools are there to use, but it turns out that it is rarely appropriate. Which is also why most other languages are also trying their best to move away from the practice as a general rule, if it ever was adopted at all.
A Java exception can suppress stack trace init if needed, letting an instance be created once and reused very cheaply (though logs will be less useful).
And Go has very nice support for interfaces. To the extent you don't even need to declare support for an interface. Go just figures it out if your type supports all the methods in the interface.
If you mean classical Smalltalk style OO, no Go doesn't support that, but neither do Java or C# or C++.
Its type system is much more primitive than either one of those.
Like I remember there was a whole drama about generics, errors being simple strings and always returned without being able to raise them, is this attitude still there or have things changed?
Example, if you ask ten Scala developers to solve a problem, you'll get ten different solutions. That number drops quickly for less feature-rich and more opinionated languages like Go.
My point is not about bringing all features other languages have (its just not possible unless its a lisp), but rather creating a new language and not understanding how vital something like generics is for general purpose programming. That is an orange flag for me.
Change their mind? What do you mean? Go always maintained it would get them, once the right design was found – which was echoed by Ian Lance Taylor actually working on them even before the first public release. He alone has, what, 8 different failed proposals?
The problem was always, quite explicitly, that nobody within the Go team had the full expertise necessary to create something that wasn't going to be a nightmare later. As you may recall, once they finally got budget approval to hire an outside domain expert, the necessary progress was finally made.
Being an open source project, you'd think the armchair experts on HN would have stepped in and filled in that gap, but I suppose it is always easier to talk big than to act.
This is a very interesting part and looks like you know about what happened. I wonder how come Go team had many super talented experts (Pike and Thompson for example) with a "power" of Google behind them and generics were an issue at all, while for example Crystal being a very similar language with native code generation, similar concurrency model and no big tech behind it managed to pull it off?
I've read some comments of devs who used both and they say Crystal is just plainly better. This just doesn't make sense to me, the biggest tech company on the planet should create a language that is head above everything else, but ended up being just good.
Generics were eventually added. But not until they thought through very carefully performance and compilation time implications.
UPD: thankfully Go does not try to bring in every "feature" possible. Not without consideration at least.
As a suggestion, you could have delved more into the "hammer" metaphor, mentioning that a hammer is a flexible tool: nail planks, remove nails, smash things and even as a defensive weapon! You shouldn't misuse it for drilling walls, but that is outside the required scope of your work etc.
But in the end it's a very personal post, and we typically crave here for universality and judge posts up high from a meta-perspective, haha. Often neglecting that we were not actually the intended audience.