Go: What We Got Right, What We Got Wrong

Re:Go: What We Got Right, What We Got Wrong by wavemode on Thursday January 04, 2024 @07:13PM (#38874025)

I believe even the language's own designers would agree with that sentiment. There's just generally a lot of things about Go that are great for low-level microservices but not great for 1M+ line of code business applications maintained by large teams.

I can't speak for others, but personally if I'm writing software with complex business logic, I'd want null safety, better error handling, a richer type system, easier testing/mocking... I've also never liked that a panic in one goroutine crashes the whole application (you can recover if it's your own code, sure, but not if it happened in a goroutine launched by some library).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Go: What We Got Right, What We Got Wrong by dx034 on Friday January 05, 2024 @03:56AM (#38877090)

I'd disagree with most of that, but the panic in goroutines really hits home. It's so annoying to remember implementing recover in every goroutine started to avoid crashing your application. I don't get why there's no global recover option that can recover from panic's in goroutines as well.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Go: What We Got Right, What We Got Wrong by closeparen on Monday January 08, 2024 @12:01PM (#38914884)

Goroutines are expected to communicate on channels. If one goroutine simply vanishes, then its counterparties on any channels will deadlock - either waiting for messages that never come, or trying to send messages to it after channel buffers fill up.

Crash is significantly easier to detect and understand than deadlock.

[ Parent | on HN ]