Convert a deck of cards ([]Card?) to a map (map[Card]bool?) and back just to shuffle? That's unlikely to be faster or more idiomatic than a straightforward implementation of the Fisher-Yates shuffle[1]. Try writing the code to do it both ways and compare.
I think "idiomatic" would be using rand.Perm, which implements the Fisher%E2%80%93Yates shuffle. But aside from whether it's idiomatic, converting to a map isn't random enough.
With Golang 1.11, I get orderings like this. S is spades, H is hearts, D is diamonds, and C is clubs, because HN eats the Unicode characters I was actually using.
S9 SJ SK HQ D9 S4 S5 S10 HJ S8 H6 DA D2
D4 DQ C6 C8 CJ H3 H9 DK C3 CQ SA S2 S3
S6 SQ H4 H10 D8 D10 C4 CK S7 H7 D5 D6 D7
C7 H2 HK D3 DJ C2 C5 C9 HA H5 H8 CA C10
On average you would expect about one card in a shuffled deck to be
(cyclically) followed in the deck by its succeeding card, and on
about one out of 50 shuffles, that card would be followed by its
successor. Here we have S4 S5, DA D2, SA S2 S3, and D5 D6 D7.
In particular it seems like there ought to be a less verbose way to express the equivalent of the Python list({card: True for card in deck}) in Golang.
IIRC it used to just start iteration at a pseudorandom index and then iterate normally. I looked at it couple years ago, don't know if they changed it.
It seems to do that, but I think it also tweaks the hash function for each newly created map, because in the code linked from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22278753 I'm not getting rotations of the same iteration order when I generate two maps. There doesn't seem to be any randomness in mapiternext() itself.
You could imagine that the hash function itself might do an adequate job of randomizing the order of the cards, though, especially if salted with a per-map salt. SipHash, for example, would probably not have any detectable biases in the distribution of the permutations thus produced. But whatever hash function Golang is using for my structs has an easily visible bias, as described in that comment.
What does it say? That Python is willing to spend more computation time for simplicity, without waiting for the programmer to ask for it? That Python will make semantic changes in minor version bumps of the language?