My number one is not having algebraic/sum/union types leading to needing zero-values. Which is more like a never idling foot gatling gun.
Copying a mutex by value (thus duplicating the lock, causing deadlocks or worse) is far too easy
Wow, even c++ won't let you do that (without invoking undefined behavior, anyway).
`go vet` catches this.
Re:Fixing for Loops in Go 1.22
by erik_seaberg on Tuesday September 19, 2023 @06:42PM
(#37578048)
Is there a way to declare any type uncopyable? This is something I always thought Ada got right.
Re:Fixing for Loops in Go 1.22
by smasher164 on Tuesday September 19, 2023 @06:54PM
(#37578188)
you stick this in your struct
type noCopy struct{}
func (*noCopy) Lock() {}
func (*noCopy) Unlock() {}I use a tool called "type theory"
Keep posting about D, I'm sure it will catch on soon.
It has been a while, but yes, there were a lot of them and I forget most. It made it kinda pointless to me that the language was "easy" when the code felt so brittle (Null pointers...really?).
One weird thing that always goofed me up was that slices are passed by value but maps by reference. Always made it confusing how to pass them for serialization/deserialization. The compiler didn't complain it just panicked. Seemed like something the type system should catch.
If you append to a slice, you can't rely on the changes showing up in the original slice, nor on them not showing up.
That the printf functions shit garbage into your output if you get the formatting specifiers wrong.
I'd much rather have a crash than silently corrupting output.
Re:Fixing for Loops in Go 1.22
by telotortium on Tuesday September 19, 2023 @11:39PM
(#37580130)
[delayed]
Huh? Where’s the list? From the top of my head I think this is the only thing that repeatedly bit me, although I’m very aware of the behavior of for loop scoping. Linters save me nowadays at least.
Are there other things like that in the language that deserve a fix? Maybe things to do with json un/marshaling?