Go Modules in 2019

Re:Go Modules in 2019 by weberc2 on Wednesday December 19, 2018 @11:47AM (#18716943)

I don't know. While no doubt some individual conversations have played out this way (law of averages and all that), I think this is a bad way to characterize the overall conversation. From my viewpoint, the conversation is largely people coming from other languages telling the Go community its way is wrong while the people on the Go team argue that there are tradeoffs that they'd like to explore. For example, pretty much every Go-related conversation over at /r/programming seems to have someone arguing that it's literally impossible to build software in a language that lacks generics (or exceptions) while people from the Go community argue that generics are probably worth the tradeoff, and then only if the maintainers can figure out a way to implement generics _well_ (i.e., not like C++ or Java).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Go Modules in 2019 by coldtea on Wednesday December 19, 2018 @12:59PM (#18717703)

>I don't know. While no doubt some individual conversations have played out this way (law of averages and all that), I think this is a bad way to characterize the overall conversation.

Most everything I've seen from the Go camp, including the new re-discovery of various wheels with the Go 2.0 proposals, felt like the parent describes to me.

Never got the same from Rust, otoh.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Go Modules in 2019 by weberc2 on Wednesday December 19, 2018 @02:28PM (#18718597)

I don't really want this thread to further devolve into a tit-for-tat. I'll just say that Rust's community has its bad eggs like any other, but that it does do exceptionally well at sympathizing with criticism. I'm mostly in "the Go camp", but Go's community can learn from Rust's here. On the other hand, for whatever reason, Rust is rarely approached with the same hostility that Go's community is--at least I don't see nearly the same percent of threads in /r/rust in the form, "I've been using Rust for 2 hours now and I haven't been able to figure out lifetimes and lifetimes are different than my language so lifetimes are stupid and no one can ship code with Rust!"

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Go Modules in 2019 by geodel on Wednesday December 19, 2018 @01:36PM (#18718047)

See comments for Rust new website thread on reddit and elsewhere. Most Rust community seems mightily pissed off for all negative comments about their newly designed website. Besides Rust enthusiasts have reputation of trolling random people on internet who have unflattering things to say about Rust.

Or try opening new thread on Swift forum on issues where decisions have been take. They will quickly put you in place and close the thread.

I have yet to see a successful language where whiners are embraced with great enthusiasm.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Go Modules in 2019 by coldtea on Wednesday December 19, 2018 @01:57PM (#18718244)

>Besides Rust enthusiasts have reputation of trolling random people on internet who have unflattering things to say about Rust.

I don't speak about Rust enthusiasts or even the Rust community at large, there are people like that in all languages (though indeed some communities might be better than others, but with large enough numbers of users of a language you get all kinds of people in a similar enough distribution).

I speak of the core team. Go's one has a vibe I don't get from Rust's.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Go Modules in 2019 by calcifer on Wednesday December 19, 2018 @01:32PM (#18718016)

> I think this is a bad way to characterize the overall conversation.

> pretty much every Go-related conversation over at /r/programming seems to have someone arguing that it's literally impossible to build software in a language that lacks generics

Literally literally? Isn't your reply a "bad way to characterize the overall conversation" as well?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Go Modules in 2019 by weberc2 on Wednesday December 19, 2018 @02:11PM (#18718402)

> Literally literally?

Yes; I've challenged this as hyperbole and people double down.

> Isn't your reply a "bad way to characterize the overall conversation" as well?

I don't think so. My reply characterizes the overall conversation as a difference of opinion about whether or not Go's design choices are matters of tradeoffs, and I believe this to be accurate. I chose my example because it was exceptionally stark, but the point is that if such stark comments are made so frequently, surely there is a long tail of less-stark comments. Anyway, I don't want to belabor the point because we have no data and all we can do is conjecture and stir up bad feelings and likely a flame war, so let's not do that.

[ Parent | on HN ]