--- title: "Go programming language: my totally unprompted opinions" author: Chris Hodapp date: "2018-04-13" tags: - technobabble - go - golang --- # TODO: Link to my asyncio post After I wrote my post on Python and asyncio, I had the opportunity to work with the [[https://golang.org/][Go]] language for some other projects, and I started jotting down my opinions on it as I did so. After using it for a bit, I decided that it's mostly C with concurrency, seamless [[https://www.slideshare.net/matthewrdale/demystifying-the-go-scheduler][M:N threading]], garbage collection, fast compilation, namespaces, multiple return values, packages, a mostly sane build system, no C preprocessor, *minimal* object-oriented support, interfaces, anonymous functions, and closures. Those aren't trivialities; they're all rather great things. They're all missing in C and C++ (for the most part - excluding that C++11 has started incorporating some). They're all such common problems that nearly every "practical" C/C++ project uses a lot of ad-hoc solutions sitting both inside and outside the language - libraries, abuse of macros, more extensive code generation, lots of tooling, and a whole lot of "best practices" slavishly followed - to try to solve them. (No, I don't want to hear about how this lack of very basic features is actually a feature. No, I don't want to hear about how painstakingly fucking around with pointers is the hairshirt that we all must wear if we wish for our software to achieve a greater state of piety than is accessible to high-level languages. No, I don't want to hear about how ~$arbitrary_abstraction_level~ is the level that *real* programmers work at, any programmer who works above that level is a loser, and any programmer who works below that level might as well be building toasters. Shut up.) I'm a functional programming nerd. I just happen to also have a lot of experience being knee-deep in C and C++ code. I'm looking at Go from two perspectives: compared to C, and compared to any other programming language that might be used to solve similar problems. It still has ~goto~. This makes the electrical engineer in me happy. Anyone who tells me I should write in a C-like language without goto can go take a flying leap. The concurrency support is excellent when compared to C and even compared to something like Python. The ability to seamlessly transition a block of code in between running sychronously and running asynchronously (by making it into a goroutine) is very helpful, and so is the fact that muxes these goroutines onto system threads more or less transparently. Concurrency was made a central aim in this language. If you've not watched Rob Pike's [[https://blog.golang.org/concurrency-is-not-parallelism][Concurrency is not parallelism]] talk, go do it now. While I may not be a fan of the style of concurrency that it uses (based on [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communicating_sequential_processes][CSP]] rather than the more Erlang-ian message passing), this is still a far superior style to the very popular concurrency paradigm of Concurrency Is Easy, We'll Just Ignore It Now and Duct-Tape the Support On Later, How Hard Could It Possibly Be. [[http://jordanorelli.com/post/31533769172/why-i-went-from-python-to-go-and-not-nodejs][Why I went from Python to Go (and not node.js)]], in my opinion, is spot-on. Many packages are available for it, and from all I've seen, they are sensible packages - not [[https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/4bjss2/an_11_line_npm_package_called_leftpad_with_only/][leftpad]]-style idiocy. I'm sure that if I look more carefully, a lot of packages mostly exist in order to patch over limitations in the language - but so far, I've yet to encounter a single 3rd-party uber-package that is effectively a requirement for doing any "real" work in the language, while the standard libraries don't look excessive either. I don't exactly make it a secret that I am [[http://www.smashcompany.com/technology/object-oriented-programming-is-an-expensive-disaster-which-must-end][not]] [[https://medium.com/@cscalfani/goodbye-object-oriented-programming-a59cda4c0e53#.7t9nj6geg][a fan]] of [[http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/OO_programming/why_oo_sucks][object-oriented programming]]. I like that Go's support for OOP is rather minimal: it's just interfaces and some syntactic sugar around structs. The syntax and typing are very familiar to anyone who has used C, and they seem to make it easy for editors/IDEs to integrate with (likely by design). It all feels very solid. However, while [[https://blog.golang.org/defer-panic-and-recover][defer, panic, and recover]] are an improvement over C, I'm less a fan of its oppositions to exceptions as a normal error-handling mechanism. Whatever the case, it was a conscious design decision, not an oversight; see [[https://davidnix.io/post/error-handling-in-go/][Go's Error Handling is Elegant]] and Pike's [[https://blog.golang.org/errors-are-values][Errors Are Values]]. The article [[http://250bpm.com/blog:4][Why should I have written ZeroMQ in C, not C++ (part I)]] also makes some good points on how exceptions can be problematic in systems programming. My biggest complaint is that while I tend to prefer strongly-typed, statically-typed languages (and Go is both), I feel like the type system is also still very limited - particularly, things like the lack of any parametric polymorphism. I'd probably prefer something more like in [[https://www.rust-lang.org][Rust]]. I know this was largely intentional as well: Go was designed for people who don't want a more powerful type system, but do want types, and further, to support this kind of polymorphism involves tradeoffs it looks like they were avoiding, like those Russ Cox gives in [[https://research.swtch.com/generic][The Generic Dilemma]]. (Later note: the [[https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/master/design/go2draft-contracts.md][Contracts - Draft Design]] proposal for Go 2 offers a possible approach for parametric polymorphism.) My objections aren't unique. [[https://www.teamten.com/lawrence/writings/why-i-dont-like-go.html][Ten Reasons Why I Don't Like Golang]] and [[http://yager.io/programming/go.html][Why Go Is Not Good]] have criticisms I can't really disagree with. (Also, did you know someone put together https://github.com/ksimka/go-is-not-good?) All in all, though, Go is a procedural/imperative language with a lot of good design in language and tooling... which is great, if it's only procedural/imperative you need.