Maybe learn to take screenshots first? :P
I honestly don't get why people like Go. Structural typing makes it so difficult to find classes that interpret an interface. Every dumb go project has to be opened in an IDE or something with a language server to find implementors of an interface. Also, forcing every capitalised object in a module or struct to be exported is just... wat? Returning a tuple of
whatever, erralso feels wrong. It's like they couldn't decide between throwing exceptions or an enum and went with something in between.I get that the inbuilt concurrency features are nice, but the rest of the language and stdlib feel very lackluster. At least that's my impression after ~2 weeks of it. My retreat to Rust was rather quick.
The stdlib I actually find quite complete. Especially for http projects. You really don't need third party libs for that for example.
The errors were super strange to me at the start, but I've come to really like it over exceptions. It is similar to old error codes, but I feel that this makes one always have to be mindful of error handling and the non happy path (thinking of large Python projects where no one cares about exceptions).
A lot of people tend to compare Go and Rust, but I feel that the languages are just too different. Rust is good for a variety of things which don't overlap with the things Go is good for.
What I don't like about Go's error handling is that it's built on returning a tuple of result/error instead of enum/union/variant/whatever-its-called. Which means that on error path you have to return something for successful result too (usually a "zero-initialized" struct because Go doesn't have optionals). You are not returning result or error, you are always returning both. This is just wrong.
It is similar to old error codes, but I feel that this makes one always have to be mindful of error handling and the non happy path
Technically you need a separate linter (
errcheck) to ensure you don't just ignore errors. This is...not great. (That should have been a compiler error.)
I'm in a similar position. I tried Go too, but its not a fun language to work with for me. But I get what they are aiming for, a very simplistic language without too many features or structures, inspired by C itself. In fact one of the Go language developers is Ken Thompson, who developed C language itself too.
And you know what, that's fine. Not every language has to offer everything. There are huge portion of people who like this approach. You can easily begin programming in Go, after a few hours or days of learning. There is really not much from language perspective to learn. I don't have to like it, but others do, and that's fine.
If anything, I would look at Zig instead Go. Zig is also not very complicated. Its even closer to C and can run C code directly. Its kinda the child of C and Rust.
Yeah, the Go creators seem to generally mean "resembles C" when they use words like "simple", which could explain stuff like going "why do you need generics when you can just cast?" for, what, ten years?
I remember trying some Plan9 stuff and bouncing off it, including acme. I guess it's the kind of thing that makes sense to Pike but not to me. Not sure what gophers in general think of it (but wikipedia lists at least Russ Cox as a user).
