[rcv]

I typically develop in Python, C++, and Typescript, and recently had to implement some code in Go. So far I've found it a pretty unpleasant language to use. It feels pedantic when I don't need it to be, and yet I have to deal with `interface{}` all over the place. Simple things that would be a one-liner Python or TS (or even just an std::algorithm and a lambda in C++) feel like pulling teeth to me in Go.

I'd love to hear of any resources that can help me understand the Zen of Go, because so far I just don't get it.

[badrequest]

I write Go every day, and can count the number of times per year I have to involve an `interface{}` literal on one hand. Unless you're doing JSON wrong or working with an API that simply doesn't care about returning consistently structured data, I can't fathom why you'd be using it "all over the place."

[coffeebeqn]

Me too. We have around a dozen go services and I have maybe used or seen interface{} once or twice for a hack. Especially after generics. I think the parent comment is suffering from poor quality go code. It’s like complaining about typescript because things in your codebase don’t have types

[xarope]

Dealing with databases and data scanning into custom structs, you would be writing lots Scanner/Valuer custom functions which use interface{}

If you are the lucky ones not dealing with databases, I sort-of envy you...!

[kiitos]

Applications should basically never need to write custom Scanner/Valuer functions that deal in interface{}, if you find yourself doing that it's a red flag

[badrequest]

I use sqlc and it makes this a non-issue.

[Spiwux]

You discovered the Zen of Go. There are no magic one liners. It's boring, explicit and procedural.

Proponents argue that this forced simplicity enhances productivity on a larger organisational scale when you take things such as onboarding into account.

I'm not sure if that is true. I also think a senior Python / Java / etc resource is going to be more productive than a senior Go resource.

[pharmakom]

... so the code ends up being really long then.

[Spiwux]

Yes, pretty much. It's a pain to write, but easy to read. On a larger scale the average engineer likely spends more time reading code than writing code

[tuetuopay]

I don't find go that easy to read. It is so verbose that the actual business logic ends up buried in a lot of boilerplate code. Maybe I'm bad at reading code, but it ends up being a lot of text to read for very little information.

Like a one-line list comprehension to transform a collection is suddenly four lines of go: allocation, loop iteration, and append (don't even start me on the append function). I don't care about those housekeeping details. Let me read the business logic.

[Cthulhu_]

It's a tradeoff; I too find one-liner list comprehensions like simple transforms or filters easier to read than the for loop equivalent.

However, it's a dangerous tool that some people just can't be trusted with. Second, if you go full FP style, then you can't just hire a Go developer, they need additional training to become productive.

Here's an example of functional programming within Go taken far: https://github.com/IBM/fp-go/blob/main/samples/http/http_tes.... It basically adds a DSL on top of Go, which goes against its principles of simplicity.

There was another great resource that explains why functional programming in Go is a Bad Idea; one is function syntax (there's no shorthand (yet?)), the other is performance (no tail call optimization), and another is Go's formatter will make it very convoluted; I think it was this one: https://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2955/

[za3faran]

First time I hear that list comprehension is a dangerous tool. The way python implements it is awkward I'll give you that, but there is a lot of success in how Java and C# implement it for example. golang just chose the easy and overly verbose way out, it's a theme they have that is visible in the rest of the language.

[kiitos]

Go offers a programming interface at a lower level of abstraction than languages like Python or Ruby. What you call boilerplate or housekeeping, I consider to be mechanical sympathy.

Modulo extremes like Java, the bottleneck for programmers understanding code is about semantics, not syntax -- effectively never the literal SLoC in source files. It's not as if

    for i := range x {
        x[i] = fn(x[i])
    }

is any slower to read, or more difficult to parse, or whatever, than e.g.

    x.transform(fn)

in any meaningful sense.

[tuetuopay]

You don't need to go the python or ruby route to get such benefits. I daily write rust that has a pretty comprehensive iterator system, while still getting the nitty-gritty in your hands. As some other commenter put it, `x.iter().map(function).collect()` is mentally translated to "apply function to the collection x" at a glance.

between

    var y []int
    for _, x := range x {
        y = append(y, function(x))
    }

and

    let y = x.iter().map(function).collect();

I'll take the second form any day. You express the flow of information, and think about transformations to your collections.

[saagarjha]

So my 2¢ as someone who's just been skimming this thread: I read the second example faster. I mean it's like 2 seconds vs 5 seconds, but in the first I have to actually read your loop to see what it's doing, whereas in the latter I can just go "oh apply fn over x".

[xmcqdpt2]

Your example is very simple though.

What's the go equivalent to

  x.map(fn).filter(predicate)

ie returning a new collection of transformed items which is filtered by some predicate? Now we are talking more like 5-6 lines of Go.

[za3faran]

Now add filtering and groupBy and watch that loop become several dozen lines. I worked on one of the largest golang codebases in existence, and it's definitely harder to see the underlying logic compared to something like Java or C#.

[neonsunset]

Mechanical sympathy in Go? When you think you've seen it all...

Go is not a high performance language which made a lot of decisions that don't lend its usage to be nice in scenarios where people want C and Rust. However, with the hype around it, the management continues to make decision, to everyone's detriment, to utilize Go in performance sensitive infrastructure code which one could write in Rust or C# and achieve much higher performance.

[Cthulhu_]

One caveat; if `fn` is declared inline when calling that function, it's not very pretty because Go doesn't have a function shorthand (yet?):

    x.transform(func(value int) string { return fmt.Sprintf("%b", value) })

This quickly becomes more difficult to read, especially if you want to chain some operations this way.

But this applies to other languages as well, in JS (which has a function shorthand) I prefer to extract the predicates and give them a meaningful name.

[pharmakom]

I think that shorter code is easier to read - to a point! on balance most code is too long, not too short.

[goatlover]

Go seems like the antithesis to Lisp.

[gtowey]

Go is the language that's not made for you, it's made to make the life of the next guy who has to maintain your code easier! :-)

[neonsunset]

This is partially correct. It is made to solve internal Google's politics and the hubris of yet another graudate with a CS degree and an itch to justify hours he or she invested in practicing Leetcode (which, in turns, is a skill of writing mediocre stdlib code for languages that have inadequate stdlib)

[za3faran]

It's harder to maintain compared to similar logic written in Java or C#.

[Cthulhu_]

That's a great way to phrase it, I'm going to steal that :D

[vineyardmike]

One of the big things that I’ve found helped is to “stop being an architect”. Basically defer abstraction more.

People, esp from a Java-esque class based world want class inheritance and generics and all that jazz. I’ve found at work like 50% of methods and logic that has some sort of generic/superclass/OOP style abstraction feature only ever has 1 implemented type. Just use that type and when the second one shows up… then try to make some sort of abstraction.

For context, I can’t remember the last time that I actually used “interface{}”. Actual interfaces are cheap in go, so you can define the interface at use-time and pretty cheaply add the methods (or a wrapper) if needed.

If you’re actually doing abstract algorithms and stuff every day at work… you’re in the minority so I don’t know but all the CRUD type services are pretty ergonomic when you realize YAGNI when it comes to those extra abstractions.

Edit: also f** one liners. Make it 2 or three lines. It’s ok.

[devjab]

If I asked you to carve wood, would you prefer a carving knife or a Victorinox multipurpose tool? I get that it’s a bit or a cheesy analogy, but it’s basically why I liked Go. To me it’s the language that Python would have been if Python hasn’t been designed so long a go and is now caught in its myriad of opinions. Because I certainly get why you wouldn’t like an opinionated language, I really do. It’s just that after more than a decade, often spent cleaning up code for businesses that needed something to work better, I’ve really come to appreciate it when things are very simple and maintainable, and Go does that.

Similarly I’m not sure you would like working with Typescript in my team. Our linter is extremely pedantic, and will sometimes force you to write multiple lines of code for what could probably have been a one liner. Not always, mind you, but for the things we know will cause problems for some new hire down the line. (Or for yourself if you’re like me and can’t remember what you ate for breakfast). The smaller the responsibility, the less abstraction and the cleaner your code the easier it’ll be to do something with in 6+ months. Now, our linter is a total fascist, but it’s a group effort. We each contribute and we alter it to make it make sense for us as a team, and that’s frankly great. It’s nice that the ability to do this, and the ability to build in-house packages, is so easy in the Node ecosystem, but it’s still a lot of work that Go basically does for you.

So the zen is in relinquishing your freedom to architect the “linguistics” of your code and simply work on what really matters.

I’ve never used Interface{}.

[mseepgood]

Since the advent of generics I rarely ever use `interface{}`.

[kiitos]

interface{} is a pretty strong code smell.