Every line of Go code written is a radical act of protest against the self-appointed Experts
who fuck around with type systems and category theory all day. While it’s not my kind of language I appreciate that it exists and people actually do useful things with it
-
-
Replying to @slava_pestov
The problem is that using Go is also a pointless protest against basic type system features that were universally acknowledged to be good until Rob Pike decided he’d go on a crusade against them for some reason. Like basic generics and non-nullable types.
2 replies 2 retweets 48 likes -
Replying to @pcwalton @slava_pestov
maybe cram sum types in there too? no runtime cost as far as i'm aware. (but broadly agree - even in haskell i'd prefer to avoid the astronautics.)
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @mwotton @slava_pestov
Yeah, sum types are my preferred solution for non-nullable types. I’d also add generational GC. For some reason Go decided to go on a crusade against generational GC and I’m all
1 reply 0 retweets 13 likes -
Isn't the Go GC acknowledged as one of the best in class?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I believe it's mostly good at lowish latency, rather than throughput.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
It concerns me that, because the Go GC has such a good reputation (not deservedly, IMO), generational GC will become less popular.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
If you’re creating a new language runtime, don’t look at what Go does for GC. Look at what HotSpot does, or what Android does.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Or OCaml.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Well, OCaml’s GC isn’t concurrent, is it?
-
-
Indeed, it is not but there is ongoing work on a multicore GC.
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.