One of the things go makes it simple to do is help a reader understand which constructs belong to which package, since any use of external imports is prefixed by the package name.
In go, if I don’t know a constructs definition, i know exactly where to look at and find it.
When exploring a new language I won’t always setup an ide first. I just want to look at the documentation on my own. Heck, any language which requires ide or any mandatory tooling to work with it, is already handicapping a developer.
G# seems to copy go syntax but didn’t copy the things that go makes it easier to understand any go code.
I expected the game to restart when I lost the word, but when it continued it piqued my interest to continue playing.
It can get bit tedious as one progresses, you need to push yourself to continue. Not sure what can be done to motivate yourself to continue. But I did enjoy since it didn’t make me restart if I lose a round.
Hey this seems like a nice tool. I would request if you can also add examples/demo for a listener before they begin the test, like intervals(what is P5, m6,etc how they sound), chords(major/minor chord in different octave), etc. That way listener would know about each facet of music, and then they can take the test.
> the idea was that either you contributed or not, and there is no gradient
Is the work predefined,ie, how much will each person do?
> Some have the group leader as the first name, or the 'big shot' is always first. My impression is that in medicine it is often a kind of ranking from 'most to least' main author
Does this affect your standing in workplace or industry? When we read about papers in scientific journals, news, or even arxiv, they mostly refer to the work based on first name, like “potato-peeler et al”. Sure it’s for brevity But when you look at the authors, there maybe 10 ppl listed. I have always wondered how do they get recognised. Since Like you mentioned they have to contribute. If they contribute but their names get swallowed up within “et al”, how does someone know how much was their contribution?
Bit off topic but I have always wondered how is it decided whose names would come first in a paper. You mentioned you and Duc Hoang having equal contribution, so how did you both decide this? Was it that persons idea first or you were his roommate and owe him a beer? Coin toss? I never had an traditional college life. Always wondered about all this.
> This pattern is particularly useful in scenarios where caching isn't suitable or when the results are expected to change frequently
Any suitable examples? In the linked posts it gives querying weather service as an example but still uses a cache. Even with a normal concurrent request to a single function, a caching layer can be added before it makes any external request. Or am I misunderstanding this use case?
It’s insane that you are incapable of understanding anything I wrote. It’s even more insane that you seem to be unaware about evolution of error handling and why things are different in modern languages.
Study software engineering. Or study in general. Might improve your comprehension issues.
I suppose you are missing the point. Go had support for self contained binaries since its introduction in ~2009. This was not the case with dotnet, if i am not wrong.
But nevertheless , if any language provides something like that, win-win for entire ecosystem.
> Most of that was written by the Go team, not Google management, and even has the famous Rob Pike take on it.
I am unable to understand your point or you seem to be making arguments that have nothing to do with the article nor with my earlier replies. I wonder why. Are you expecting sundar pichai to announce golang to his shareholders in his quarterly call? Which language does that?
This article and my replies are technical in nature. You need to have a technical response to a technical problem. You cant get emotional everytime. Which language allows me fast builds, lightweight and high performance concurrency, strong stdlib and tooling, easy cross compilation with static binaries, simple syntax, decent performance and by that i mean not worrying too much on memory management, easy onboarding and large scale maintainability? I am willing to try that tool.
> if they can express the entire algorithm succinctly with a one liner
> That's the kind of abstraction every piece of code should strive for and be shamed to the ground if they haven
This obsession with one liners is inversely proportional to professional experience.
Which is what should be discussed about go, rather than if-err clauses. That is hardly an issue in go. But Go has these little quirks which, if not careful, can become a problem. But instead most go critiques discuss only the error handling syntax. Look at the other comments.
The article is on point on the strengths of go, and in many cases, those other languages you say, you will find it really hard to do the same thing with the ease with which you can do in go.
What the article glosses over, is the footguns with working with the language. No compile time nil checks, implicit interfaces, lack of sum types, like you said, which more so often leads to bloated structs, member visibility which is just private and public. You can find more.
But these problems were not the main focus of go. Go was build because google devs wanted a simpler way to manage and deploy their software across thousands of services, not having to wait forever for their code to compile, not worrying about writing cpp code in the BEST possible industry standard, ability to do parallel processing of hundreds or thousands of workloads without choking your cpu, managing dependency hell. These were actual roadblocks. And google was not the only one facing these problems. Go solved all of it. Which language was solving this before go?
> No it really doesn't. It litters your code with if statements that are all just about the same
Wrong thing to be bothered with. This allows static analysis of every possible path the code can take. Try to do that with throw/catch. There is a reason many industry guidelines like misra, jsf, etc just outright ban hidden paths. They have been literally catastrophic. There is a reason why many modern languages like go, rust, etc, want errors to be explicitly handled.
> Rust converts the common case boilerplate down into one character: ? which lets you focus on any exceptional error handling rather than a wall of if statements that almost all look alike
Again, wrong way to look at errors. Errors are not a problem for a compiler to resolve. Errors are part of your business logic. They need to be explicit and handled. The syntax of one language vs another is not the point of error handling. Errors are not a distraction. It is your job to review each path the code can take.
Code may be written once, but code is always reviewed or audited or referenced more than once. No one is impressed if you write some meta magic one-liner. I would rather be more impressed if I can read your code and form a mental image on how many paths your code takes to achieve an outcome in a single sitting, instead of pinging you for a quick call to explain yourself.
> you go blind looking at them all and can't spot the difference
> And these days people probably just type "tab" and their LLM assistant fills out the entire block incorrectly in one keypress copying the pattern from everything else
Now, if someone is 'going blind' looking at error checks, its because their function is doing too much and has too many failure points. Perhaps one may need to focus on honing their software engineering skills on how to structure their code, instead of hitting that 'tab' more so often.
For the curious, solvers like z3 are used in programming languages to verify logic and constraints. Basically it can help find logic issues and bugs during compile time itself, instead of waiting for it to show up in runtime.
In go, if I don’t know a constructs definition, i know exactly where to look at and find it.
When exploring a new language I won’t always setup an ide first. I just want to look at the documentation on my own. Heck, any language which requires ide or any mandatory tooling to work with it, is already handicapping a developer.
G# seems to copy go syntax but didn’t copy the things that go makes it easier to understand any go code.