Go's full of hacks, and holds no shame over it. Zero-initialized everything, and proceeding to 'defer' instead of RAII, generic builtin types despite lack of generics (until recently), no builtin list type, slices having capacity...

This was Go's design philosophy until Rob Pike left - to do the simple thing simply and not try to be clever about it.

▲

tialaramex 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> no builtin list type

Wait, which thing do you mean by a "list type" ? A growable array type like Rust's Vec<T> or C++ std::vector<T> or the ArrayList type seen in several languages ?

Or do you mean a linked list type akin to C++ std::list or std::forward_list or Rust's std::collections::LinkedList ?

"List" is vague, which is appropriate if you're talking about very high level abstractions where it doesn't matter how it works and 5 gigabytes, 5 bits, 5 weeks or 5 seconds are all finite so who cares - but in the real world we usually do care.

	▲	Groxx 14 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, I really don't see much of a reason for Go to get a first-party linked list type. In most cases in non-list-oriented languages the performance and ergonomics are awful compared to a competent growable array type, the mechanical sympathy of "real" linked lists is generally terrible. Plus they're extremely easy to build if you truly have a good use for one, particularly with generics.

▲

josephg 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It’s not simple though. The language is simpler, sure. But you pay for language simplicity with program complexity. In go, you have to write and debug a lot more code.

I don’t mind spending a few extra weeks learning a more complex language if doing so saves me months of time down the track programming and debugging. That is an excellent investment.

▲

mainde 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I've not seen this in my experience tbh, the extra code that Go requires is ugly but not complex, the lack of ergonomics actively discourages "clever" solutions and, as a result of this, people tend to write the kind of straightforward code that doesn't end up needing lengthy programming or intense debugging.

At my workplace we've used many languages over the years (C#, Python, Go) and Go teams are the ones that by far do the least amount of yak shaving and have the most intelligible codebases.

▲

throw-the-towel an hour ago | parent | next [-]

It's hard and annoying to read though. Constantly beating around the bush, circling the point but not stating it, not unlike LLM prose.

▲

MartinodF an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

100% also our experience. We have an internal CLI which has grown to almost half a million lines of Go, mostly contributed to by first-time gophers (and agents nowadays), and with relatively little work spent on making sure the core entities and interfaces encourage doing the right thing, the entire codebase is still surprisingly readable and free of unexpected behaviors.

▲

porridgeraisin 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yep. But with go 1.22/1.23 and later this is changing. It's becoming a hell of a mess like many other big languages. I think it was two consecutive releases back in 2024 where they added for ... range and generics? That was when I gave up.

Sad that the one language that managed to occupy that nice spot in language design space for an extended period of time, isn't doing so anymore.

Of course, you can actively restrict yourself to standard go, but not needing to do that was the whole point.

	▲	jerf an hour ago \| parent [-]
		The support for iterators is relatively new, though being limited to data structures that an iterator makes sense on, they don't exactly get around in the language and pollute everything everywhere. The support for generics is years old and I don't believe anyone who claims it has ruined the language. I've barely encountered them in the wild and I've never encountered the thing people were really worried about in the wild where something has 4 generic parameters that are themselves complicated generic parameters of other things. If you're encountering that, it is either some one-off library I've never encountered, or it's because you or your team are writing it, to which the solution is, stop that. I'm not even sure I've yet seen a "generic" in a library in Go that isn't simply straight up a generic data structure, the core use case for generics. I've written a couple of such things but they're all internal code.

▲

kbolino 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

RAII has the advantage that you can't forget to do it, but defer has the advantage that you can handle failure in ways other than panicking. Of course, in many cases (e.g. closing a file), there's generally not much you can do anyway even if you want to handle the error directly, but at least it's possible.

▲

bewareofscams 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Rust can handle that with RAII without panicking just fine. And not only Rust..

	▲	kbolino 22 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Sure, you can just ignore errors entirely, and this is what Rust actually does today, at least for std::fs::File. The only other option within RAII that I can think of is that you can mutate some external, longer-lived state. The primary way to deal with error-on-clean-up in RAII languages is to not rely exclusively on RAII for it. Rust's File type, for example, has sync_data and sync_all methods (which, to be fair, only even need to be called for writable file handles). I don't think there's anything wrong with this approach, but it ends up being just as explicit and therefore forgettable as defer. It should be noted that you can (at least in Rust) actually implement defer using RAII; see e.g. the scopeguard crate. Since RAII is block-scoped, this defer is also block-scoped (like Zig) rather than function-scoped (like Go).

▲

bewareofscams 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

More like Pike's design philosophy was "let's do some half-thought things and sabotage any current or future improvement proposal for decades to come, while gaslighting everyone that Go is good because Google and because people can't see difference between 'systems' and 'system' programming".