News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Go: What We Got Right, What We Got Wrong by dharmab on Thursday January 04, 2024 @07:12PM (#38874018)
"Too low level" "lacks the power" - I don't understand what this means. What are things that are hard to do in Go business applications that other languages do better?
Re:Go: What We Got Right, What We Got Wrong by rowls66 on Thursday January 04, 2024 @08:18PM (#38874538)
Here is an example. Go let’s structs be passed by value or by reference. The programmer needs to decide, and that adds complexity that is largely irrelevant for modeling complex business logic. Java does not provide a choice, which keeps it simple.
Re:Go: What We Got Right, What We Got Wrong by Cthulhu_ on Monday January 08, 2024 @10:48AM (#38913665)
Simple, but with an inherent performance issue and GC load; note also that Java's Valhalla project adds value types with more stack based semantics, so there too you as a developer get a choice.
Re:Go: What We Got Right, What We Got Wrong by za3faran on Thursday January 04, 2024 @08:27PM (#38874598)
It lacks modeling capability that you'd find even in languages like Java and C#. Enums, records, pattern matching, switch expressions, and yes even inheritance where it makes sense.
Re:Go: What We Got Right, What We Got Wrong by shakow on Thursday January 04, 2024 @09:05PM (#38874856)
> What are things that are hard to do in Go business applications that other languages do better?

Streams, meta-programming, enums, ‶modern″ switches, generators, portable types in CGo, streamlined error handling, safer concurrency primitives, nil, partial struct initialization, ...

Re:Go: What We Got Right, What We Got Wrong by kaba0 on Friday January 05, 2024 @02:44PM (#38883799)
Lacks expressivity is likely what parent meant.