|
> But can I comprehend the bigger picture? Can I understand why? Isn't the actual meat buried under piles of non-abstraction? The way you approach this in Go (and I would argue in any other language) is by building small abstractions when and if it makes sense to do so. Not by introducing abstractions early, or in order to make a piece of code slightly easier to follow. A simple comment might help to explain tricky logic, but otherwise you shouldn't need explanations about core language features. Abstractions are not free. They can be poorly written, leaky, abstract too much or too little, inflexible, increase overall complexity and thus cognitive load, impact performance, introduce bugs, etc. So relying on them only when absolutely necessary is often the sensible choice. Also, if possible, building your own bespoke abstraction is often preferable to using an external package. You can tailor it to your exact use case, without adding another dependency, which carries its own risks and problems. This specific package seems designed to be syntax sugar over language features, which is not a good idea for future maintainers of the code that uses it. They would need to understand how this 3rd-party library works, even if the author claims it to be more readable, ergonomic, or what have you. |