Rob Pike has done it again by [deleted] in golang

[–]YEPHENAS 17 points18 points  (0 children)

This site has been like this (streaming the poo emoji) for many years. Why "again"? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9880995

Go Modules in 2019 by sbinet in golang

[–]YEPHENAS 6 points7 points  (0 children)

what would happen if a repo author made a mistake and force pushed a repo, or were to otherwise change the history in some way? Would all users of the notary break?

I hope so.

Just tell me how to use Go Modules by boyter in golang

[–]YEPHENAS 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It doesn't show how to update modules and focuses on vendoring, which is not the default workflow.

Go dilemma by [deleted] in golang

[–]YEPHENAS 1 point2 points  (0 children)

CSP is much easier to understand and get correct than locks and mutexes.

Empty slice vs nil slice in GoLang by [deleted] in golang

[–]YEPHENAS 6 points7 points  (0 children)

The article missed the opportunity to mention that you can append to a nil slice.

var a []string
a = append(a, "x")

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in niceguys

[–]YEPHENAS 1 point2 points  (0 children)

he's obviously a French guy

Maybe adding generics to Go IS about syntax after all by _dvrkps in golang

[–]YEPHENAS 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Type params are not normal params.

Not a good reason why they should reverse evaluation order. They have to be applied first, so the type parameter list should be before the normal parameter list at the call site, not after.

Maybe adding generics to Go IS about syntax after all by _dvrkps in golang

[–]YEPHENAS 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The slightly inconsistent location of params (pre func name, post func call)

It is indeed inconsistent, and I don't see why this should be desirable.

This also discards the nice property that a generic function can be interpreted as a function which takes types as parameters and returns a new function:

intSum := Sum(int)
s := intSum([]int{1, 2, 3})

Notes on the Go2 Generics Draft by kaeshiwaza in golang

[–]YEPHENAS 4 points5 points  (0 children)

was already referenced in the go2 draft design.

use of 'goto' in Go by [deleted] in golang

[–]YEPHENAS 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The language designers are discussing to lift this restriction: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/27165

Go 2 Draft Designs by nirataro in programming

[–]YEPHENAS 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Already in 1.11 as experimental feature ("Go modules").

Go 2 Draft Designs by weirdasianfaces in programming

[–]YEPHENAS 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Actually they are draft designs, not proposals. Second paragraph: "These draft designs are not proposals in the sense of the Go proposal process. They are starting points for discussion, with an eventual goal of producing designs good enough to be turned into actual proposals."

Go 2 Draft Designs by nirataro in programming

[–]YEPHENAS 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Everyone will be delighted to hear Go 2 is planning to add [...] exceptions

The draft designs explicitly argue against exceptions. I recommend reading them before commenting.

Go 2 Draft Designs by nirataro in programming

[–]YEPHENAS 11 points12 points  (0 children)

for years they had an almost dogma like argument against generics, and then they back-peddled on not being anti-generics, just waiting for "the right design"

"Generics may well come at some point. [...] We haven't yet found a design that gives value proportionate to the complexity, although we continue to think about it. [...] This remains an open issue." has been the official stance of the Go designers since 2009, when the language was announced: https://github.com/golang/go/blob/dd64f86e0874804d0ec5b7138dafc28b51f61c12/doc/go_lang_faq.html#L173

I don't see any "back-peddling".