undefined | Better HN

0 pointsViktorasM10y ago0 comments

but having all those things go would become another C++ with a different syntax.

I like the direction Go is going of "there are no options to choose", like unconfigurable fmt, or the fact that there is no way to create "exotic" implementations.

However, generics would be my number #1 on the list of "maybe let's add that". Would be nice to have less "interface {}" in reusable libraries.

Exceptions would be probably second, but that would come with some sort of runtime cost. With them Go would start to drift towards "generic programming language".

0 comments

9 comments · 4 top-level

coldtea10y ago· 3 in thread

>but having all those things go would become another C++ with a different syntax.

Haskell and CL have "all those things" and they are not "C++ with a different syntax".

I don't know why people repeat these cliches... It's not like a language can't have many features and be designed well at the same time. It just takes preparation and effort instead of ad-hoc additions (like with C++).

duaneb10y ago

I'd argue either are just as bad as C++ if you actually use all those features, just like NOT using all those features turns your C++ readable.

I'd also argue that Haskell does NOT support all the features directly but implements them through the language, which is a Good Thing.

I consider CL a mess, so I probably shouldn't comment on it.

geodel10y ago

But then there need not be raging debate about Go/Generics. As pragmatic developers can move to Haskell etc if Go has no value add to them.

coldtea10y ago

That reminds me of the "If those books say something worthwhile, it will be in the Kuran, too, so it's ok to burn them. If they don't, they it's ok to burn them anyway" argument -- something a sultan is alleged to have said as the justification for burning the library of Alexandria.

The thing is, it's not just the feature set, different languages have lots of different things going (or not going) for them too.

One might like Go's syntax over Haskell's.

Another might not like Haskell's purity.

A third might not like Haskell's heavyweight platform installation and tooling.

Another might be forced to use Go because of his work but still hate the lack of Generics.

Yet another might prefer Go over Haskell just for the fact that you can find Go jobs, where Haskell jobs are too few and far between.

pcwalton10y ago· 2 in thread

Exceptions don't have any runtime costs beyond those which Go is already paying by mandating unwinding.

In fact, C++-style exceptions are strictly less expensive in the non-exceptional case than defer, because of defer's dynamic semantics. Go's semantics require a slower exceptional control flow scheme than almost any other language I'm aware of, including dynamic ones like JavaScript.

duaneb10y ago

IIRC the idea is that the conceptual overhead of exceptions is much larger than the runtime cost, hence the minimal syntax/runtime support beyond defer (which is easy to follow, if hard to implement efficiently).

I am not so sure I would agree with this, but I don't use go enough to have a firm opinion myself.

pcwalton10y ago

Try/catch/finally is simpler than panic/recover/defer both conceptually and in implementation, due to the statically, lexically-scoped semantics.

2 more replies

ktRolster10y ago

I wouldn't mind seeing a powerful contracts implementation in C++. (Or any language, really).

duaneb10y ago

This was basically the point I was trying to make. :)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

9 comments · 4 top-level

coldtea10y ago· 3 in thread

>but having all those things go would become another C++ with a different syntax.

Haskell and CL have "all those things" and they are not "C++ with a different syntax".

duaneb10y ago

I'd argue either are just as bad as C++ if you actually use all those features, just like NOT using all those features turns your C++ readable.

I'd also argue that Haskell does NOT support all the features directly but implements them through the language, which is a Good Thing.

I consider CL a mess, so I probably shouldn't comment on it.

geodel10y ago

But then there need not be raging debate about Go/Generics. As pragmatic developers can move to Haskell etc if Go has no value add to them.

coldtea10y ago

The thing is, it's not just the feature set, different languages have lots of different things going (or not going) for them too.

One might like Go's syntax over Haskell's.

Another might not like Haskell's purity.

A third might not like Haskell's heavyweight platform installation and tooling.

Another might be forced to use Go because of his work but still hate the lack of Generics.

Yet another might prefer Go over Haskell just for the fact that you can find Go jobs, where Haskell jobs are too few and far between.

pcwalton10y ago· 2 in thread

Exceptions don't have any runtime costs beyond those which Go is already paying by mandating unwinding.

duaneb10y ago

I am not so sure I would agree with this, but I don't use go enough to have a firm opinion myself.

pcwalton10y ago

Try/catch/finally is simpler than panic/recover/defer both conceptually and in implementation, due to the statically, lexically-scoped semantics.

2 more replies

ktRolster10y ago

I wouldn't mind seeing a powerful contracts implementation in C++. (Or any language, really).

duaneb10y ago

This was basically the point I was trying to make. :)

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse