But I keep wondering if they could integrate at a lower-level than the source code. Like how JVM languages integrate at the bytecode level, or LLVM languages at the LLVM level
I’m sure they could, but targeting go source code has the benefit of giving early adopters an escape hatch. If it targeted LLVM directly, I would never consider using this at work since the risk of it being abandoned is too high. But since it targets go source, I would perhaps consider it for some low importance projects at work.
Thanks for putting so succinctly exactly how I feel about Go!
Unfortunately nothing below source code level is stable, so they would constantly be chasing changes after any Go release. I personally wish they would focus on making it accessible, as Go actually has a nice runtime and would make a good language target.
I'm working on a language that transpiles to Zig with a custom Go-like runtime (and no garbage collector, Rust-style Affine movement instead).
Sky seems quite cool, as it's additive to Go in interesting ways.
I originally considered keeping the GC and just transpiling to Go so I didn't need to write a Runtime.
Go rules! It really does. But I HATE writing/reading Go.
So I'm glad more people are doing this!
Same. I love the Go toolkits, the compile story, the speed at which it compiles, its backwards compatibility, the fact that stale Go code 10 years old still compile and run, etc., just don't care much for the language itself.
I wonder if the positive attributes of Go aren't compatible with clever types and other developer-friendly features?
Eventually Go’s runtime and tooling will be bog standard and everyone will think of them as boring and then people will start building more exciting languages on top of them. Assuming AI doesn’t blow everything up.
Strong types also improve the interaction between humans and AI: shitty code is way more obvious with strong types. Pure strong-type langs like Elm take this to an even higher level: all cases must handled, such that runtime errors are practically impossible to express.
I've worked professionally on a large Elm program that has had 5 devs on it, and the promise held out: no runtime error, ever. Other stories for this exist.
A transpilation step though? I'll accept that in Typescript (barely) but not for any other language really.
For my version (aptly named "Goto" [1]), I forked the go compiler with the intent of keeping it up to date. All changes I made only apply to .goto files, .go files compile exactly as is and are interoperable both ways with goto.
I paused the project due to hitting type-checking bugs when trying to add non-nillable pointers. Everything before was just desugared directly when converting to AST, but for those I needed to touch the typechecker which was too time-consuming for a hobby project back then (pre-coding agents). I might give it another go sometime as I did like the full interoperability aspect.
As a prime example, Go unwillingness to add even the most simple enum kind of type. Having enums (ADTs) with exhaustive pattern matching is NOT complex in any sense or form. It just takes away so, so many bugs you would normally see in production code.
One other low hanging fruit is the fact that zero values are in 90% of all cases not what the dev intended. Sure, the mantra goes "make them useful" but thats hard. How to you know if a value (int) was zero initialised, or if the user did in fact input zero as value. No matter, you will need to validate every one of these "zero values" if you want some sort of robustness.
In fact C was built sometime around the early 70s, and at the same time the first MLs where also being developed. One added null, while the other added a better mechanism for "nothingness".
Bottom line is you cant compare "adding null" and adding a feature that is over 50 years old, one that is battle-tested thru generations, and still holds up.
Solid maths does no suffer bitrot.
https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Null-References-The-Bill...
Go has enums, under the iota keyword. But I imagine you are really thinking of sum types. Technically Go has those too, but must always have a nil case, which violates what one really wants out of sum types in practice.
Trouble is that nobody has figured out how to implement sum types without a nil/zero case. That is why you haven't seen a more well-rounded construct for the feature yet. This is not an unwillingness from the Go team, it is more of a lack of expertise. Granted, it is an unwillingness from those like yourself who do have the expertise. What stops you from contributing?
> It just takes away so, so many bugs you would normally see in production code.
What bugs do you imagine are making it to production? Each pattern matched case has a behaviour that needs to be tested anyway, so if you missed a case your tests are going to blow up. The construct is useful enough that you don't need to oversell it on imagined hypotheticals.
I know fo is not (i dont want it to be) like ocaml, bit any modern language should have some of the basic safety features baked in.
Okay, so you are dreaming of a situation where you allow a new developer who doesn't know anything about how to engineer software unfettered access to your codebase and he goes in and starts mucking about to where he ends up doing things that no sensible human would ever consider acceptable?
I accept you like to live dangerously and have no real care for the product you are building. But, still, you've only covered a limited subset of all the similar things this new developer who doesn't know the first thing about building software can make a mess of. Ocaml just isn't going to cut it.
To reach the full gamut you need, say, a proper dependent type system. But are you really going to throw all your Ocaml code away and start writing Rocq just to deal with this guy you should have never let touch your code in the first place? Probably not. So, what now? Your only practical option is to fire him and find someone who actually understands how to write software. And at that point your tests will catch such forgetfulness just fine.
> No test will catch this 100%
Testing cannot exhaust all cases where the search space is infinite as that requires infinite time to evaluate. In this case, you have exactly 4 states. That is evaluated on the order of nanoseconds. If your tests are not capturing every one of those four permutations, it seems clear that you need to stop letting any random Joe who has never done more than some quick vibe coding anywhere near your code. These are solved problems.
And, hell, even if you did switch to a language with a proper type system, like Rocq, so you could mathematically guarantee all aspects of your program, the shitty programmer will still fail to write theorems that are free of holes. So don't think that even lets you of the hook in hiring those who live by the vibes. There is simply no escaping the need for solid engineering.
When you have that, exhaustiveness checking still remains a useful tool, but you aren't going to forget something and ship broken code to production if you don't have it. This isn't a realistic scenario outside of the contrived. Again, The construct is useful enough that you don't need to oversell it on imagined hypotheticals.
Tell me without telling me you have never worked on a large scale business app.
The only place where the your contrived idea is in any way plausible is where you have a solo developer who thinks he is able to write code without making mistakes or needing to document anything, using a half-assed type system not failing as some kind of proof to himself of that. But in reading this he, unless the hubris is completely off the charts, will be reevaluating that stance.
I think its not about the "typesystem" but the fear of using something the dev is unfamiliar with. I know people who has written the same code, in the same language for 20+ years. "It worked then, and it will work now" is tattooed on their forehead. Its basic human behaviour, you see this in politics, business and life in general.
> testing and types try to solve the exact same problem
Sure, they overlap.
Tests are just a poor mans types, Types are just a poor mans tests
But in my mind tests cover the how, and types the what. With both you need less of both. Its a win-win.
> These large scale apps of which you are speak are simply built around constant failure in production.
This is true. But im going to my grave trying to change that. Its an uphill battle.