> Probably [hello NIGHTMARE !]. Who wants that? Nobody wants that.

I don't really care if you want that. Everyone should know that that's just the way slices work. Nothing more nothing less.

I really don't give a damn about that, i just know how slices behave, because I learned the language. That's what you should do when you are programming with it (professionally)

▲

thomashabets2 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Yup. If you code in Go then you should know that.

Just like every PHP coder should know that the ternary operator associativity is backwards compared to every other language.

If you code in a language, then you should know what's bad about that language. That doesn't make those aspects not bad.

	▲	theodorejb 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Note that since PHP 8.0 the ternary operator is non-associative, and attempting to nest it without explicit parenthesis produces a hard error.

▲

skitter 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The author obviously knows that too, otherwise they wouldn't have written about it. All of these issues are just how the language works, and that's the problem.

▲

terminalbraid 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you're fine with that then you should be upset by the subsequent example, because by your own definition "that's just not the way slices work".

▲

813ac4312b25c 4 days ago | parent [-]

I am fine with the subsequent example, too. If you read up about slices, then that's how they are defined and how they work. I am not judging, I am just using the language as it is presented to me.

For anyone interested, this article explains the fundamentals very well, imo: https://go.dev/blog/slices-intro

▲

terminalbraid 4 days ago | parent [-]

Then you seem to be fine with inconsistent ownership and a behavioral dependence on the underlying data rather than the structure.

You really don't see why people would point a definition that changes underneath you out as a bad definition? They're not arguing the documentation is wrong.

▲

a day ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

rustandmore a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Ownership is perfectly consistent.

`append` always returns a new slice value

`func append(slice []Type, elems ...Type) []Type`

The only correct way to use append is something like `sl = append(sl, 1, 2, 3)`

`sl` is now a new slice value, as `append` always returns a new slice value. You must now pass the new slice value back to the user, and the user must use the new slice value. The user must not use the old slice value.

It's trivial to fix the "bug" in the article, once you actually understand what a slice value is: https://go.dev/play/p/JRMV_IuXcZ6

A slice is not the underlying array, and the underlying array is not the slice. A slice is just a box with 3 numbers.

▲

assbuttbuttass 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The definition is perfectly consistent. append is in-place if there's enough capacity (and the programmer can check this directly with cap() if they want), and otherwise it allocates a new backing array.

	▲	terminalbraid 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, it's consistent and complicated and non-intuitive. "Consistent" is necessary but not sufficient for "good".

▲

lawn 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> because I learned the language

If that's your argument then there are no bad design decisions for any language.