Fair enough … I understand that people have different styles
On Wednesday, August 2, 2023 at 12:54:20 AM UTC-6 Brian Candler wrote:
> FWIW, I'm in the "I like how it is now better than any other proposal so
> far" camp; I think this happens as you get used to the Go way. Go is Go.
>
> The only thing I would consider is making *interface* types (only)
> implicitly usable in a boolean context, e.g.
>
> if err { ... }
>
> However, I suppose people would ask "why not pointers? why not channels?"
> etc. I'm not suggesting it should become like Python where every non-zero
> value is treated as "true". Interface values are special, and there's very
> little you can do with a nil interface (whereas for example, a nil pointer
> can still have methods called on it). But this does add a special case,
> and Go already has its share of surprises you have to learn.
>
> On Tuesday, 1 August 2023 at 22:41:38 UTC+1 DrGo wrote:
>
>> Yes. Go is no longer the simple language it was. I suspect because of
>> internal pressures within Google as evidenced by multiple innovations that
>> seem to come from nowhere eg dir embedding and associated fs package that
>> duplicated perfectly good ways of doing things. The module system while
>> useful is quite complex. Generics and all the associated packages inflated
>> the mental burden of learning and reading Go code significantly. And having
>> the go 1 compatibility guarantee means that old stuff remains valid code
>> and must be learned too.
>>
>> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023 at 2:59:07 PM UTC-6 Victor Giordano wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah.. I mean, the "idiom" `err != nil return` err is something of the
>>> language. I complain about the boilerplate that idiom produces and that is
>>> fact fact (no one can deny it).
>>>
>>> You know, your approach implies making the language a little more
>>> complicated as new ways to deal with errors appear. I do understand that
>>> some folks provide some push back on the idea simply because there is
>>> nothing wrong with the language right now regarding error handling.
>>>
>>> As I see things, the language was simple in their origins, but from time
>>> to time they complicated a little more some things, for example "what about
>>> generics?" (are they really necessary?, I mean... I think using interfaces
>>> provides all the genericity you may need). So I guess there is room to make
>>> some changes and make the language easier. I would say that both ways of
>>> handling errors are valid, the most important is to be as simple
>>> as possible so you ensure that other people understand it. Like Generics,
>>> you don't have to use them. So I would praise it for adding another way,
>>> less repetitive.
>>>
>>> Also like to see how people react and what their opinions are. So far
>>> what I read is just personal taste.
>>>
>>>
>>> El mar, 1 ago 2023 a las 16:04, 'Luke Crook' via golang-nuts (<
>>> [email protected]>) escribió:
>>>
>>>> And of course I forgot the "if" at the beginning of all those
>>>> conditional. *sigh*
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>>>> Google Groups "golang-nuts" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/golang-nuts/dRLR4hxxI8A/unsubscribe.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>>>> [email protected].
>>>>
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CADtPBF2%3DTNBorhCCamWGb29qkNkXxgFZ%2BmnhkOC0kG2sxzp%3DWw%40mail.gmail.com
>>>>
>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CADtPBF2%3DTNBorhCCamWGb29qkNkXxgFZ%2BmnhkOC0kG2sxzp%3DWw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> V
>>>
>>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/7f7c62e4-805f-46ef-8b77-64e5fe3b3cdfn%40googlegroups.com.
