[NateDad]

one of the things that go eschews is operator overloading.

    a := b + c

What's the runtime complexity of this statement? How much memory will it cause to be allocated? In go there's only two possibilities for what this code is doing... either this is string concatenation, or it's adding two numbers. Both of which are immediately comprehensible for impact on run time and memory.

In C#, you can overload operators, so the + could in theory do anything. And what's bad about that is that it is deceptive. It's easy to miss the fact that this line might actually be doing something complex.

It also means that if someone is looking at your code, they can't make any assumptions about what any particular line of code is doing, without complete understanding of a vast amount of code.

This is one of the pieces of magic that I'm glad go doesn't have.

[norswap]

Hogwash. In a language with operator overloading, this would be something like `a.assign(b.plus(c))`. Which really doesn't tell you more about what go on under the wraps than the operator form.

What can be confusing is what the meaning of `+` (or `plus` is). In some case it can be fairly obvious (e.g. concatenating sequences), while in other not so much. Operator overloading is nice, but has to be used tastefully (like every abstraction or language tool).

[grey-area]

In C#, you can overload operators, so the + could in theory do anything.

What can be confusing is what the meaning of `+` (or `plus` is)

QED

[norswap]

Any function can do anything. I can write a function called "read_from_file()" that doesn't read any files.

Amazing, I know.

Also please actually read the comment before replying:

> Operator overloading is nice, but has to be used tastefully.

[grey-area]

The point the OP made was that operator overloading is not nice - it means that any operator (not just function) can do anything. It makes code harder to read and reason about.

[pjmlp]

    a := Sum (b, c)

How can you be sure that Sum actually does a sum without looking at its implementation?

[jy3]

I think you are missing the point. Of course you can't assume what a function will do with certainty.

[pjmlp]

From CS point of view + is just a function name just like any other.

A concept used in lambda calculus, introduced in computing since Lisp exists.

Also part of abstract mathematics field, where operator symbols get defined for the proofs.

[sagichmal]

> From CS point of view + is just a function name just like any other.

From a Go point of view, it isn't.

[pjmlp]

Just because Go eschews decades of CS knowledge, in the name of the "easy to hire programmers" for Google[1], it doesn't make it less true.

[1] - According to the language designers own words

[sagichmal]

What you wrote isn't a universal truth. In Go, + is not a function like any other. There's no argument to this.

[sheepmullet]

The point is in most languages operator overloading is no more complex than a method call.

It's not exactly magic.

[nuggien]

Overloading + could be magic if you want it to be. In go, + is exactly what you think it is. In languages with operator overloading, I literally could make + do whatever I wanted to.

[pcwalton]

> How much memory will it cause to be allocated?

In Go, it's impossible to tell because "a" might be captured by a closure, in which case it will be heap-allocated. But if escape analysis promoted it to the stack or a register, then it will not allocate memory.

[CJefferson]

I honestly don't understand the difference with ' a := add(b,c) '. Does it really make things that much difference? And lack of overloading makes maths heavy code horrible to read.

Of course, you can go to the C extreme, no overloading, specialisation or anything, every function name means one thing. That does add some nice features, but is a pain in the ass when naming things!

[slrz]

The difference is more apparent in the other (non-overloaded) case. When in Go (or C, …) you see an expression "x << y" you know immediately that this is just a shift operation, mapping to at most a couple machine instructions. In certain other languages it's most likely an integer shift, too. Still, you have to carefully consider the context lest this simple shift expression causes synchronous I/O to some space probe near Mars

[zzzcpan]

"they can't make any assumptions about what any particular line of code is doing, without complete understanding of a vast amount of code."

Yes, this is a problem with many designs. More importantly they can't easily look up what does an operator do. But this problem can be easily avoided if a set of operators used in a particular scope had to be explicitly specified. For example, if you want "+" to mean a bigint addition from a set of bigint math operators, you would have to import that set into that scope, kind of like this:

  import_operators "bigint"
  a := b + c

Now you still have overloading, but it is very clear where to look up an operator and a set of operators used in this scope.

"In go there's only two possibilities for what this code is doing..."

There should be only one possibility, though. Dual-meaning operators don't provide any value to ever have them, apart from familiarity with design mistakes of the past.

[NateDad]

I agree, I wish + wasn't string concatenation either.

[iopq]

One of the few good decisions PHP made is not using + for concatenation.

[kazinator]

> In go there's only two possibilities for what this code is doing... either this is string concatenation, or it's adding two numbers

That is overloading! What go eschews is user-defined overloading.