• Marxism-Fennekinism@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    83
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Sometimes I think Go was specifically made for Google to dictate its own preferences on the rest of us like some kind of power play. It enforces one single style of programming too much.

    • space_comrade [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      From what I’ve heard from Google employees Google is really stringent with their coding standards and they usually limit what you can do with the language. Like for C++ they don’t even use half the fancy features C++ offers you because it’s hard to reason about them.

      I guess that policy makes sense but I feel like it takes out all the fun out of the job.

      • Sloogs@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Just about any place I know that uses C++ also does that with C++ so that’s nothing unusual for C++ specifically. It’s too big of a language to reason about very well if you don’t, so you’ve gotta find a subset that works.

        • skeletorsass [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Too many patterns. If you do not do this every author will have a different use of the language and you will have to read a book of documentation each time you change files.

    • philm@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is this a hard error? Like it doesn’t compile at all?

      Isn’t there something like #[allow(unused)] in Rust you can put over the declaration?

      • flame3244@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes it is a hard error and Go does not compile then. You can do _ = foobar to fake variable usage. I think this is okay for testing purposes.

          • flame3244@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Worse than not having a unused variable check at all? Dunno, the underscore assignment are very visible for me and stand out on every code read and review.

            • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Yes, worse, because now if you want to use the underscore assignment to indicate that you really want to discard that variable - it gets confused with underscore assignments that were put there “temporarily” for experimentation purpose.

              • merc@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                1 year ago

                Exactly.

                Say I’m having some issue with a function. I comment out half the function to see if that’s where the weirdness is. Golang says “unused variable, I refuse to compile this dogshit!” I completely fool Golang by just using _ = foo. Yes, I was correct, that’s where the problem was. I rewrite that section of the code, and test it out, things work perfectly. Only now, it turns out I’m not using foo anymore, and Golang has no idea because I so cleverly fooled it with _ = foo.

                Now, something that could be caught by a linter and expressed as a warning is missed by the language police entirely, and may make it into production code.

                Police the code that people put into a repository / share with others. Don’t police the code that people just want to test on their own.

        • nomadjoanne@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ew, that’s awful. Go is not one of my programming languages but I had always held it in high esteem because Ken Thompson and Rob Pike were involved in it.

          • merc@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s the main reason it has had any success. It’s not that it’s a good language, it’s just that it has good references.

          • flame3244@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Honestly, it does not happen often that I have a ln unused variable that I want to keep. In my mind it is the same thing when wanting to call a function that does not exists. Also my editor is highlighting error Long before I try to compile, so this is fine too for me.

        • AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The underscore is used in production code too. It’s a legitimate way to tell the compiler to discard the object because you don’t intend to use the pointer/value.

    • flame3244@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think this is a good thing. The styles are just opinions anyway and forcing everyone to just follow a single style takes a lot of bikeshedding away, which I really like.