Oh yeah totally agree. I don't understand why someone would want to write `slices.Contains(s, needle)` when you can write this beautiful poem like a Shakespeare in VSCode:

    found := false
    for _, v := range s {
        if v == needle {
            found = true
            break
        }
    }

Oh and I totally want to build a stack trace manually. It's like doing cardio to me.

    if err != nil {
       return fmt.Errorf("my function name but in spaces: %w", err);
    }

This is very elegant by the way, so that we need errors.Is now, which has to dynamically check if the error implements Unwrap() error or Unwrap() []error. Because having any language facilities for error handling is harmful.

▲ b7e7d855b448 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I don't say it's perfect, but right in this moment I feel most comfortable with go and I don't mind jumping through a few hoops or writing things multiple times

▲ msie 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You forgot to put /s after your post.

▲ logicchains 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Your handwritten one has a major performance bug:

    found := false
    for _, v := range s {
        if v == needle {
            found = true
            break
        }
    }

Do you see it? It copies the v into a local variable, which could be tremendously wasteful if it's a large struct. You should instead be taking a pointer to s[i] and comparing the value there with `needle`.

If you'd used `slices.Contains(s, needle)`, on the other hand, it could have such a performance bug in it and you'd never know.

	▲	kajman 32 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> If you'd used `slices.Contains(s, needle)`, on the other hand, it could have such a performance bug in it and you'd never know. Perhaps you're much better at programming than I am, but I prefer these semantics in a language because I figure they're much more likely to have been optimized empirically, support vectorization, and be less buggy than another rote loop I'm trying to speed through.
	▲	boredatoms 17 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		or contains() could be written by those who can write performant code, ..once
	▲	mathisfun123 35 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> on the other hand, it could have such a performance bug in it and you'd never know. wut...? the debate isn't between closed (incompetent) source and open (competent) source - the debate is between verbose language and expressive language.