That seems to be the Go way. Why put it in a library when everyone can just re-implement it themselves (and test and document it too, right? Right?).
E.g. There isn’t even a standard set object, everyone just implements it as a map pointing to empty structs, and you get familiar with that and just accept it and learn to understand what it means when someone added an empty struct to a map. And then people try to paint this as a virtue of the language.
E.g. There isn’t even a standard set object, everyone just implements it as a map pointing to empty structs, and you get familiar with that and just accept it and learn to understand what it means when someone added an empty struct to a map.
Goooood fucking gravy.
I hate to be such an opinionated programmer, but everything I’ve read about Go only reinforces my negative opinion, especially since I read this now-famous article.
I have decades as a SWE, including deep (but now out-of-date) C++ experience, a lot more recently in serious Python systems, and a fair amount of web UI dev on the side.
Now I have 1 year with Go. I came to it with an open mind having heard people sing its praises I thought it would be broadening to spend some time with a language new to me.
My advice now is do anything you can to avoid working in golang. Almost daily, I seriously contemplate whether it’d be worth quitting and being unemployed, even in this economy (US). It is a better C, but that’s a low, low bar at least for the project domains I ever work in. Where it’s an even plausible answer, Rust is probably a better one (I think? - haven’t used Rust for anything real).
The one, fool-proof solution to supply chain attacks? Write all your own dependencies.
I’m already writing my own dependency to check if a number is even:
if (number == 0) return true if (number == 1) return false if (number == 2) return true if (number == 3) return falseI’m almost there!
You’ve probably covered 90% of use cases there so you’re doing well!
I’m trying to port your code to Rust but the compiler keeps giving me an error about non-exhaustive match arms
this is so sad, I’m gonna pray for you in rust
Assuming you’re monotheistic, I believe you can use an mpsc channel to send those asynchronously.
It’s quite cruel of that compiler not being happy until you’re exhausted.
That seems to be the Go way. Why put it in a library when everyone can just re-implement it themselves (and test and document it too, right? Right?).
E.g. There isn’t even a standard set object, everyone just implements it as a map pointing to empty structs, and you get familiar with that and just accept it and learn to understand what it means when someone added an empty struct to a map. And then people try to paint this as a virtue of the language.
Goooood fucking gravy.
I hate to be such an opinionated programmer, but everything I’ve read about Go only reinforces my negative opinion, especially since I read this now-famous article.
I have decades as a SWE, including deep (but now out-of-date) C++ experience, a lot more recently in serious Python systems, and a fair amount of web UI dev on the side.
Now I have 1 year with Go. I came to it with an open mind having heard people sing its praises I thought it would be broadening to spend some time with a language new to me.
My advice now is do anything you can to avoid working in golang. Almost daily, I seriously contemplate whether it’d be worth quitting and being unemployed, even in this economy (US). It is a better C, but that’s a low, low bar at least for the project domains I ever work in. Where it’s an even plausible answer, Rust is probably a better one (I think? - haven’t used Rust for anything real).