Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 11th Feb 2013 22:59 UTC
General Development "I feel like writing about the Go programming language (or 'Golang') today, so instead today's topic is computer stuff. For the record, the language I've programmed the most in has been Python, so that’s the perspective I'm analyzing it from." Some good and bad things about Go.
Thread beginning with comment 552485
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[15]: My thoughts on Go
by satsujinka on Thu 14th Feb 2013 19:59 UTC in reply to "RE[14]: My thoughts on Go"
satsujinka
Member since:
2010-03-11

It's not quite devil's advocate. I like Go. The issues that have been brought up aren't actually issues when you start using Go. I've been trying to explain why that is, but I don't seem to be making any progress (then again Go isn't my #1 language; so it's a bit like me trying to explain why German capitalizes all nouns (English is my first language if that wasn't obvious.)) It may just be one of those things you have to try to understand why, but that's unfortunate since those I've been debating with are unlikely to try Go because they are hung up on a minor issue (that doesn't really exist.)

It's not quite the same as your floating point example. It would be more like if the declaration is guaranteed to be a double, but you declare it as one anyways.

In your second example, I could imagine that being an issue. However, the same sort of issue occurs if the provider explicitly labels the object but doesn't include one you want (that the object does support.)

So better then optional would be "guarantee signatures." Which would say "this object MUST implement x, y, and z; but it may implement any others that the object has the right signature for"

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[16]: My thoughts on Go
by Alfman on Thu 14th Feb 2013 20:21 in reply to "RE[15]: My thoughts on Go"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

satsujinka,

"It's not quite the same as your floating point example. It would be more like if the declaration is guaranteed to be a double, but you declare it as one anyways."

I intentionally picked 'double' because it's often not clear from context whether the compiler is using a 'double' or 'single' variable type. But I still get your point.


"So better then optional would be 'guarantee signatures.' Which would say 'this object MUST implement x, y, and z; but it may implement any others that the object has the right signature for'"

That's the idea.

Reply Parent Score: 2