105 lines
6.0 KiB
Org Mode
105 lines
6.0 KiB
Org Mode
---
|
|
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). 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 it's perhaps not my favorite approach to concurrency. 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. [[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.
|
|
|
|
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.
|