Why I Don't Like Golang (2016)

Re:Why I Don't Like Golang (2016) by sdegutis on Wednesday June 12, 2019 @06:49PM (#20170159)

I liked a similar aspect of Ruby: attributes and 0-args methods had the same syntax, so you could easily refactor a static field into a method that returns a dynamically calculated value. Overall I don't like that feature, but that was a very handy aspect of it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why I Don't Like Golang (2016) by ben-schaaf on Wednesday June 12, 2019 @07:03PM (#20170254)

Ruby actually went one step beyond: there are no attributes. `attr_reader` just generates a 0-arg method, while `attr_writer` just generates a 1 argument `name=` method.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why I Don't Like Golang (2016) by masklinn on Thursday June 13, 2019 @02:09AM (#20172220)

TBF that's pretty directly inherited from the Smalltalk ancestry: just like Smalltalk, Ruby simply doesn't have public (data) fields. Although it does provide shortcuts for automatically generating accessors which I don't think Smalltalk did / does.

Funnily enough, Self opted for the opposite tack of not having private data fields (although it does have readonly and read/write slots), but you can trivially swap "data" slots and "method" slots: http://handbook.selflanguage.org/2017.1/langref.html#constru...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why I Don't Like Golang (2016) by scroot on Thursday June 13, 2019 @08:24AM (#20174052)

> Although it does provide shortcuts for automatically generating accessors which I don't think Smalltalk did / does.

Most Smalltalk browsers do actually offer this capability

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why I Don't Like Golang (2016) by masklinn on Thursday June 13, 2019 @11:31AM (#20175803)

The tooling does provide that yes, as it does in e.g. Java. But Ruby does it without tooling, the feature is a runtime message to the class object.

[ Parent | on HN ]