So you use a language that makes specifying ownership (and immutability hard)? I always feel Go adds a lot of mental overhead.
E.g., if you have a method that returns, say, a float32 slice. 1. If I return a slice of an array/slice that is a struct member, the caller could modify elements in the slice, breaking struct invariants. 2. Returning a copy of the slice is safe, but adds a lot of overhead. What you'd actually want is to return an immutable slice, but Go does not provide any facilities to do so (apart from wrapping a slice, but the lack of generics and operator overloading makes this tedious).
I guess a lot of Go code will just assume that returned pointers/slices/maps will not be used in a way that breaks invariants. But you usually end up reading the source code of 3rd party packages to see what is safe, whereas in other languages you could just read the method signature.
tl;dr: I think ownership and preserving invariants usually give the most mental overhead and Go does zero in that department.
The funny thing about Go is that it makes up for its long list of weaknesses with essentially one single strength. You can actually read other people's code without much introduction to the concepts used in that codebase, because the number of possible meanings of any particular expression is much smaller than in other languages.
There is so much talk about Go being for dumb, second rate, corporate developers, because that's what Pike essentially said at one point (perhaps without thinking first).
But in fact, it's not the developers who are dumb. It's the process by which large corporations employ and dispose of developers. They are thrown into some project and expected to "hit the ground running". There's no time for explanation. So what they do is read code to acquaint themselves with the codebase and hopefully become productive before they move on to the next job. And that is the one task where Go really shines. Reading arbitrary pieces of code.
Of course powerful abstraction features eventually make reading code easier as well, but only after having learned the abstractions created for that particular problem and codebase and only if those abstractions are very carefully crafted.
Powerful language features help writers of code long before they help readers. And that, I believe, is essentially the dirty secret that Go exploits.
We all want to be brilliant writers of code when in fact we are often readers poking helplessly at half understood code to make something happen. We even forget our own abstractions once we haven't looked at them for a couple of months or even weeks.
The problem with Go is that it not only acknowledges this state of affairs, it also enshrines it.
Definitely. This really shines in the standard library, it consists of extremely readable code and is a good way to get up to speed on canonical Go.
We all want to be brilliant writers of code when in fact we are often readers poking helplessly at half understood code to make something happen. We even forget our own abstractions once we haven't looked at them for a couple of months or even weeks.
Definitely, but what are we comparing to? I would agree that e.g. C++ and Haskell have this property. Unless you understand the language and commonly-used abstractions, template-heavy C++ code is difficult to read. However, there are many languages that have more powerful type systems than Go, but where code is still easy to read (ML, Object Pascal, Oberon, Ada, etc.).
I wonder whether it is simply a theoretical tautology that the more abstraction features you have in a language, the more different possible meanings any particular syntactical expression can have, and the more effort it requires to figure out its true meaning, assuming you're not familiar with the codebase.
Or is that a false dichotomy? I am unfortunately not familiar with Ada or Oberon and Pascal is but a faint memory.
Sure, I could use something like Haskell, but then I'd have to worry about whether I'm accumulating a giant stack of thunks that'll blow up. go just works, and less of it will bit-rot than the comparable python script, thanks to at least some types.
This is why the SREs seem to be fans, e.g. https://talks.golang.org/2013/go-sreops.slide#1
I wrote some machine learning tools in Go and the experience is quite bad. The lack of operator overloading and parametric polymorphism make most ML code ugly. It also does not help that Go's compiler backend does not optimize very strongly and calling out to C comes with a relatively large overhead.
Sure, I could use something like Haskell, but then I'd have to worry about whether I'm accumulating a giant stack of thunks that'll blow up.
There are many languages between Go and Haskell that are productive and provide a sufficiently strong type system.
At a previous gig, I had done a lot of F#, and I think that's close to my personal sweet spot, but I'd have to use it frequently to keep it in my head. Go is small enough that I can load it into cache when I need it.
Definitely! I have continued to use Go for small utility every now and then as well. The standard library is extremely well-suited for that kind of work.
(Now using Rust more in that role as well, but mostly to get continued practice ;).)
Too many features.
Unless the project is very badly configured, that should be all you need to compile it. Now, writing those .gradle files...
Compiling most Java projects is usually as simple as 'brew install maven; mvn package'. Maven does require a build file, but it can also do more than the go utility, such as deploying artifacts in a repository, build distributable tarballs, RPMs, debs, etc.
Maven, like go, largely relies on convention over configuration as well. If you generate a POM file from the standard archetype, you basically drop your files in the right source directory and it will build.
(I am not a fan of Java, but I think a lot of the criticism here is lazy. The first time you use the 'go' tool you have to learn its usage as well: how to separate library code from programs, what are the conventions for package structure, how to avoid API breakage for downstream users, etc.)