|
|
|
|
|
|
by kelnos
1259 days ago
|
|
|
> Go has some warts, but they're all things that make sense if you know some basic concepts about go That's exactly the problem. I don't want to spend my time learning the myriad quirks of a language. I want to spend my time building my program. As someone who is an "advanced beginner" at Go, I assure you that just knowing "some basic concepts" is not enough to avoid Go's pitfalls and footguns. I don't want to work in a language where the solution to all these things is "just be careful when writing code". I'm fallible. Compilers, less so. The compiler should be doing this work for me. |
|
|
That is just it. Go's quirks are mostly a result of its consistency, not a result of a lack of consistency.
> I assure you that just knowing "some basic concepts" is not enough to avoid Go's pitfalls and footguns.
It seems that Go has two somewhat contradictory goals: consistency and similarity to popular yet inconsistent languages. This seems to result in a lot of people who can generally use the language, but haven't learned the language model because the language doesn't require that in order to get started. This seems to frustrate a lot of people and prevent them from ever learning the language model. Languages which appear completely different from popular languages don't seem to suffer this issue because people tend to learn the language model up front.
Go really only has one major source of inconsistency and that is the late addition of type parameterization. The built-in parameterized types are special, but still generally follow the same rules as other types with a few exceptions. The main thing you need to know about slices, maps, and interfaces is what they actually are. Once you know that, the normal rules apply. Channels are a different beast though.