Comment by cyphar
3 hours ago
On the other hand, design decisions made under one set of constraints can become problematic when you add new features that don't play as well with earlier design decisions.
For a concrete example, the fact you cannot define custom methods for external types in Go (a pre-1.0 design decision) means that you cannot write proper compile-time generic code to deal with some generic wrapping type (dumb example -- getting a sum of the perimeters of a generic set of shapes in an externally-defined collection type) -- you are forced to work around it with runtime type-switching. There are all sorts of arguments you can make about simplicity but this is an objective shortcoming of Go that is directly caused by generics being added to Go long post 1.0.
My take on this is that despite selfishly wanting more from Go for many years myself, adding more stuff to Go at this late stage is just slowly chipping away at Go's uniqueness with features that make a large number of people using them unhappy. (For example, while they make some APIs nicer, iterators turn a basic logic bug that is impossible with for loops -- forgetting to stop iterating when the loop has a "break" -- into a runtime panic. And they really suck to compose.)
__For a concrete example, the fact you cannot define custom methods for external types in Go (a pre-1.0 design decision) means that you cannot write proper compile-time generic code to deal with some generic wrapping type (dumb example -- getting a sum of the perimeters of a generic set of shapes in an externally-defined collection type) -- you are forced to work around it with runtime type-switching. There are all sorts of arguments you can make about simplicity but this is an objective shortcoming of Go that is directly caused by generics being added to Go long post 1.0.__
I'm a bit intrigued by this: how would that work with compatibility between libraries, separate compilation and what not? My first instinct is that it would not be a good idea but I might be missing something..?
> (dumb example -- getting a sum of the perimeters of a generic set of shapes in an externally-defined collection type)
There's a much more common example: dealing with external APIs that return JSON. Their response is trivially wrapped in Req<T>. Pre-generics Go would force you to write tedious duplicated boilerplate code for each request type, or just "cast to void*" with interface{} and hope for the best.
> adding more stuff to Go at this late stage is just slowly chipping away at Go's uniqueness
Uniqueness should not be the goal of a language.
Fair enough. Primeagen did a video recently renouncing his love of Go over the concerns you've raised.
That said, I'm assuming much of this "wobbly" functionality will live in libraries and will not be common in day to day coding (much as I've seen with generics so far). It's all optional after all.
I use Go because it's simple, capable, and been my prime language for over a decade and that skill enables me to be valuable enough for a decently paying job.
If I were younger with more energy and time on my hands I'd likely be a rustacean but I think I can ride out my career on this. YMMV.
I've maintained one of the major container runtimes (which is written in Go) for over a decade as well, I think I have a less rosy view of Go than you but I still think it's a nice language all things considered and still use it for some projects.
My goal is to be pragmatic about the issue (and everything else).
When I started with it I saw it as the love-child of C and python. Then saw it as a successor of Java.
I recognize that Rust will win this contest (although my understanding is that async still has sharp edges to round down). I'm old and tired and have lost the energy and focus for exploring new languages and believe that despite its shortcomings it will continue to have enough value to be useful.
Good enough will do for me. I tip my hat to the all the other PL contenders and wish them all well (except Java -- PTSD from that destroyed any love I had for the language).