Why does /g/ hate go?

Go is pretty good. Has issues like any programming language but the built in concurrency is nice. Wish it had generics tho

No? Best lang for fast API's and text templates. Nice single binary output. Based CSP concurrency. Great little language.

I dont really hate it like i would hate PHP. It's like ehhh, why does it even exist

>>61642921
We all know that people who hate on languages usually are pretty newbish and going through their dunning krueger phase.

>>61642921

because its brutally pratical and /g/ are a bunch of neets that get exicted about generics and other unnessecary features that only bloat the langauge.

any good book for learning go?

>>61643694
nay.. tis the error handling

>>61642921
golang is fucking amazing.

>>61643784
Agreed

>>61643756
https://www.golang-book.com/books/intro
https://github.com/miguellgt/books/blob/master/go/Introducing-Go.pdf
https://golang.org/doc/

>>61642921

fuck off brainlet

>>61642921
It's not faster than C, and it's not easier to develop in than Java. No use for it.

Ehh.

>>61644688
>not easier to develop in than Java

You have never written a non-trivial Go program. If you've ever written a non-trivial program at all, you used Java to do it, so Java is all you know. Because Go is not Java, everything else seems "harder" in comparison.

>>61642921
/g/ isn't a single person.

>>61645006
Many false assumptions, but you still come out wrong. Sad.

/g/ hates it? I'm constantly seeing shills pushing this shitty meme language all over this board.

>>61645156
>mistaking Go for Rust
It's a common beginner mistake.

>>61644482
thank you anon

>>61645165
Both are shitty memes. But Go has been aggressively shilling as of late.

>Why does a func prog cuck board hate a C-like language?

>>61643756
https://www.ossblog.org/assimilate-go-programming-open-source-books/
https://github.com/EbookFoundation/free-programming-books/blob/master/free-programming-books.md#go
not sure which are good

>>61644482
Anyone got a PDF of "The Go Programming Language" by Kernigan and the other guy? Really hard to find on Google

>>61645424
If you can't find something on Google, try Baidu.

>>61642921
Because it takes a shot at their undeserved sense of superiority. They actually have to do real work instead of continuously building trivial abstractions.

>>61645066
Oh. My bad. Perhaps all you write is CRUD business apps. You think they're non-trivial because you have thousands of classes and seventeen layers of abstraction. You would be correct, if that is the case. Go is definitly not the right language if *that* is all you do.

>>61642921
Go is awesome, only fa/g/gots hate it

>>61645445
This worked, thanks!

>>61642921

B R U T A
A L     L
C       L
I       Y
T C A R P

>>61643654
> garbage collected language
> statically typed
> great implementation
> great standard library
> easy concurrency and parallelism via channels
> compiles to a single static binary
> supported well on all major platforms

Name another language that does all of the above.

>>61645517
> compiles to a single static binary
I love Go but this pisses me off. I should be able to produce shared objects if I want to.

>C for pythonistas

No thanks

File: 1435382602707.gif (749KB, 400x315px) Image search: [Google]

749KB, 400x315px

>>61642921
NO
GENERICS

>>61645534
I think go 1.5 up can produce so files?

>>61645534
It's meant for literal retards, it shouldn't be complicating things any more than it has to

File: code enforcement.jpg (722KB, 1706x2275px) Image search: [Google]

722KB, 1706x2275px

>>61642921
basically people shit on Go for having no generics
but it turns out that if you want generics you can just use another language

when people are like
>some languages are better than others
it's like well, apart from javascript which is pretty shit, you just use whatever is best for your situation, or whatever you feel comfortable working in.

>>61645534
It's annoying in some cases but for the most part the waste of a few MBs doesn't matter and it's superior to having to deploy some huge VM (Java and C#) and fuck with classpaths.

>>61645564
>apart from javascript which is pretty shit
IMO javascript is pretty decently acceptable for client-side scripting

>>61645598
> dynamic typing
> acceptable

No.

>>61645608
>static typing
>in a script
Worse

>>61645643
Wrong. Dynamic typing is never acceptable now that we have expressive statically typed languages with type inference.

>>61645598
I too enjoy it when loading a web page takes several dozens of MB in my memory.

File: javascript.webm (214KB, 426x248px) Image search: [Google]

214KB, 426x248px

>>61645598
I mean, I use JS, but I have a much nicer time in other languages.
And you don't really have any option right now for clientside in browsers. Though you can use a language that compiles to JS (CoffeeScript is my favorite)

>>61645663
>implying scripting shouldn't be as flexible and implicit as possible

>>61645720
It definitely shouldn't unless you like bugs and unreliable systems.

>>61645750
Scripts should have very little complexity in the first place though so that shouldn't be a problem

>>61645697
my fucking sides

>>61645517
Yeah, there is no complete replacement for it that checks all of those boxes. Well, not an open source one.

>>61645996
What closed source language has all of those things?

>>61645598
It's acceptable because it's the only option.
Wasm please save us.

>>61646017
Excelsior Jet + Akka or Quasar.

>>61645517
Nim.

>>61645679
If you're gonna criticize JS at least criticize the language itself rather than shitty developers using it.

>>61646037
Nice.

>>61646060
Nim is a bug ridden mess.

>>61645517
Java

File: objection-wait-no.jpg (25KB, 300x562px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 300x562px

>>61646179

>>61646179
>compiles to a single static binary

>>61646276
technically it does because that's what a JAR is
but I mean you do need the JVM to run said file

>>61646179
If you're not counting closed source libraries/compilers that cost money Java fails on simple concurrency, compiling to a single static binary and having a decent standard library. It's also ridiculously inefficient with memory.

>>61646296
>technically it does because that's what a JAR is
>but I mean you do need the JVM to run said file

So it's not a single static binary in any way.

>>61646296
>technically it does because that's what a JAR is
Except it doesn't and it's not

>>61646296
.jar files do not include the source of the used standard library. golang binaries have the stdlib included.

>>61646318
>Java fails on simple concurrency
What's your definition of "simple" ?

>>61645517
typescript

>>61642921
i love go

>>61646026
Web assembly only serves to bring poorly written C++ into the browser too. Languages compiled down to wasm won't have access to the DOM, ergo JS will still be required.

Web assembly is not the glorious revolution and there are plenty of choices when it comes to compile to JS (see emscripten)

>>61646471
>Languages compiled down to wasm won't have access to the DOM
Yes they will, they just don't yet

DOM manipulation is part of the WebAssembly roadmap

>>61646385
Channels, actors or some kind of STM that lets you, for the most part, avoid the problems associated with managing threads and a thread pool directly. An argument could be made for Akka and Quasar but Java would still fail in other respects.

I also like that Go isn't really an OOP language and doesn't have subtyping.

>>61646897
>I also like that Go isn't really an OOP language and doesn't have subtyping.
I'm not familiar with Go, but doesn't it have interfaces?

>>61646387
Typescript doesn't have a great standard library, has no form of parallelism, and can't be compiled to a static binary. It also carries a lot of unwanted JavaScript baggage because it's a superset.

>>61646915
Yes but interfaces alone don't make it an OOP language. Is Haskell OOP because of typeclasses? Is Rust OOP because of traits? Are Clojure and Elixir OOP because of protocols?

File: retarded-GOpher.png (25KB, 300x441px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 300x441px

because go is for brainlets

>>61646970
I'm talking about subtyping, not OOP. Surely a type that implements some interface is a subtype of that interface?

>>61646972
haha my fellow redditor

>>61647001
I don't think a Go interface would be considered a subtype; more of a contract that certain methods are implemented for a particular receiver.

Go interfaces have no state and there's no way to express a hierarchy of interfaces. It also uses structural typing so the programmer doesn't even associate the interface with the type explicitly. The compiler just knows a type implements an interface based on if the methods are implemented on a receiver of that type.

>>61647001
>>61647232
Actually now that I think about it a little more I think you could consider it a subtype relationship.

>>61643756
also https://tour.golang.org

>>61644688
wrong on both counts
also, tell me of a single lang that compiles code that is faster than C code...

>>61647598
C++
>std::sort

>>61647641
>one function makes the whole lang faster
also, against what C function(s) do you compare std::sort ?

>>61647781
It's one function that C doesn't have, yet everything else can be written the same as C with identical performance to C.
qsort of course.

>>61647823
>It's one function that C doesn't have
So you're saying C++ is faster because it has a larger standard library?

Cool, great argument.

>>61648288
std::sort is just a good example of the usefulness of templates. They allow C++ compilers to inline functions that C compilers cannot. Such a thing is not possible in C.

>>61645517
Crystal

>>61648659
I like Crystal too!
Platform support is lacking a little but it's still heavily in dev so I'm sure it will improve quickly.

>>61648330
and then you try debugging that shit, and... everything sucks

Poor library support, muh generics, and the environment is an active obstruction is writing anything.

Otherwise its fine, /g/ just doesn't like it because it's not confusing enough.