Go is a very opinionated language from it's inception. We could probably argue for all eternity about code formatting, for instance. But Go went and set it in stone. Maybe it's part of good engineering to keep things simple and not allow hundreds of ways to do something. Maybe the people who use Go are the ones who just want to write and read simple and maintainable code and don't want it to be cluttered with whatever is currently the fashion.
You could look at Lisp. It's kind of the opposite of Go in this regard. You can use whatever paradigm you like, generate new code on the fly, use types or leave them. It even allows you to easily extend the language to your taste, all the way down to how code is read.
We have completely lost the plot by assuming that just because there are disagreements on somethings then any choice is equally as good as any other. Go is opinionated and it is opinion is wrong.
Not having exceptions (but then having them anyway through panic, but whatever) is a choice - but the other reasonable alternative is the Maybe monad. What Go did is not reasonable. I might be okay if they had been working on getting monads in, but they haven't.
I have a specific hatred for Go because it seems perfectly suited to make me hate programming: it has some really good ideas like fast compile time speeds, being able to cross-compile on any platform and being a systems language without headers.
But then I try to write code in it and so. much. boilerplate.
> But then I try to write code in it and so. much. boilerplate.
If boilerplate is cause for you to dislike the language, fine.
But your unnecessarily strong language "Go is opinionated and it's opinion is wrong", "What Go did is not reasonable", "I have a specific hatred for Go" speaks more about you than Go.
Go's choice of trade-off much was practical and reasonable, engineering-wise.
Thanks for your response AnonymousPlanet. I agree there is value in the pursuit of a minimal set of features in a PL which brings many benefits. And of course the opposite - an overly feature packed and/or extensible PL as a core feature has tradeoffs. Over this range of possibilities my preference probably falls somewhere in the middle.
I see an effect where the languages whose primary goal is a particular set language design choices (such as strict memory safety over all else) grow a cult following that enforces said design choices. Maybe in the pursuit of an opinionated language, even if the designers are reasonable at the language's inception, the community throws out logic and "opinionated" becomes a in-group out-group tribal caveman situation.
> Maybe in the pursuit of an opinionated language, even if the designers are reasonable at the language's inception, the community throws out logic and "opinionated" becomes a in-group out-group tribal caveman situation.
I think you've got this backward. It's not that the particular choices are important. It's a thing happening on a higher meta level than that.
Some programming languages are, by design intent, "living" languages, evolving over time, with features coming and going as the audience for the language changes.
"Living" languages are like cities: the population changes over time; and with that change, their needs can shift; and they expect the language to respond with shifts of its own. (For example: modern COBOL is an object-oriented language. It shifted to meet shifting needs of a new generation of programmers!)
If you were able to plot the different releases of a living language in an N-dimensional "language-design configuration space", these releases would appear to arbitrarily jump around the space.
Other languages, though, are, by their design intent, "crystallized" languages — with each component or feature of the language seeing ever-finer refinement into a state of (what the language maintainers consider) perfection; where any component that has been "perfected" sees no further work done, save for bugfixes. For such languages, creating a language in this way was always the designers' and maintainers' goal — even before they necessarily knew what they were creating.
"Crystallized" languages are like paintings: there was an initial top-down rough vision for the language (a sketch); and at some early point, most parts of the design were open for some degree of change, when paint was first being applied to canvas. But as the details were filled in in particular areas, those areas became set, even varnished over.
If you plot the successive releases of a crystallized language in design configuration space, the releases would appear to converge upon a specific point in the space.
The goal with a crystallized language is to explore the design space to discover some interesting point, and then to tune into that interesting point exactly — to "perfect" the language as an expression of that interesting concept. Every version of the language since the first one has been an attempt to find, and then hit, that point in design space. And once that point in design space is reached, the language is "done": the maintainers can go home, their jobs complete. Once a painting says what it "should" say, you can stop painting it!
If a crystallized language is small, it can achieve this state of being entirely "finished", its spec set in stone, no further "core maintainer" work needed. Some small crystallized languages are even finished the moment they start. Lua is a good example. (As are most esolangs — although they're kind of a separate thing, being created purely for the sake of "art", rather than sitting at the intersection of "work of art" and "useful tool" as crystallized languages do.)
But large crystallized languages do exist. They seek the same fate as small crystallized languages — to be "finished" and set in stone, the maintainers' job complete. They just rarely get there, because of how large a project it is to refine a language design.
You might intuitively associate a "living" language with democratic control, and a "crystallized" language with a Benevolent Dictator For Life (BDFL) figure with an artistic vision for the language. But this is not necessarily true. Python was a "living" language even when it had a BDFL. And Golang is a "crystallized" language despite its post-1.0 evolution being (essentially) directed by committee.
---
The friction you're describing, comes from developers who are used to living languages, trying to apply the same thinking about "a language changing to serve the needs of its users" to a crystallized language.
Crystallized languages do not exist primarily to serve their users. They exist to be expressions of specific points in design space, quintessences of specific concepts. Those points in design space likely are useful (esolangs excluded); but the expectation is that people who don't find that point in design space useful, should choose a different language (i.e. a different point in design space) that's more suited to their needs, rather than attempting to shift the language's position in design space.
Adding a bridge is a sensible proposal for a city. You can get entire streets of buildings torn down to make way for the bridge, if the need is there. But adding a bridge is not not a sensible proposal for a (mostly-finished) painting. If you want "this painting but with a bridge in it", that's a different painting, and you should seek out that painting. Or paint it yourself. Or paint the bridge on some kind of transparent overlay layer, and hang that overlay in front of the painting.
Conveniently for this discussion, Borgo here is exactly an example of a language that's "someone else's painting, but now with the bridge I wanted painted on an overlay in front of it." :)
Best comment in the thread. I think defining certain languages as "crystallised", rather than "set", explains well the underlying structure has taken a specific shape based on specific tenets. Well said.
> Go is a very opinionated language from it's inception.
True.
> We could probably argue for all eternity about code formatting, for instance. But Go went and set it in stone.
This is part of the story that Rob Pikes uses to justify how opinionated Go is, but it's a bit stupid given that most language do fine and I've never seen any debates about the code formatting after the very beginning of a project (where it's always settled quickly in the few case where it happens in the first place).
The real reason why Go is opinionated is much more mundane: Rob is an old man who think he has seen it all and that the younger folks are children, and as a result he is very opinionated. (remember his argument against syntax coloring because “it's for babies” or something).
It's not bad to be opinionated when designing a language, it give some kind of coherence to it (looking at you Java and C++) but it can also get into the way of users sometimes. Fortunately Go isn't just Rob anymore and isn't impervious to changes, and there is finally generics and a package manager in the language!
Rob Pike... and Ken Thompson, and Robert Grisemer.
Firstly, Ken Thompson is a master at filtering out unnecessary complexities and I highly rate his opinion of the important and unimportant things.
Secondly, the Go team were never against generics, the three early designers agreed the language needed generics but they couldn't figure out a way to add it orthogonally.
Go has gone on to be very successful in cloud and networked applications (which it was designed to cater for), which lends credit to the practicalities of what the designers thought as important, HN sentiments notwithstanding.
> Secondly, the Go team were never against generics, the three early designers agreed the language needed generics but they couldn't figure out a way to add it orthogonally.
This is a PR statement that has been introduced only after Go generics landed, for years generics were dubbed “unnecessary complexity” in user code (Go has had generics from the beginning but only for internal use of the standard library).
> Go has gone on to be very successful in cloud and networked applications (which it was designed to cater for), which lends credit to the practicalities of what the designers thought as important
Well, given that the k8s team inside Google developed their own Go dialect with pre-processing to get access to generics, it seems that its limitations proved harmful enough.
The main reason why Go has been successful in back-end code is the same as the reason why any given language thrive in certain environments: it's a social phenomenon. Node.js has been even more successful despite JavaScript being a far from perfect language (especially in the ES 5 era where Node was born), which shows that you cannot credit success to particular qualities of the language.
I have nothing against Go, it's a tool that does its job fairly well and has very interesting qualities (fast compile time, self-contained binaries, decent performance out of the box), but the religious worship of “simplicity” is really annoying. Especially so when it comes in a discussion about error handling, where Go is by far the language which makes it the most painful because it lacks the syntactic sugar that would make the error as return value bearable (in fact the Go team was in favor of adding it roughly at the same time as generics, but the “simplicity at all cost” religion they had fostered among their users turned back against them and they had to cancel it…).
70% of cloud tools on CNF are built with Go; Kubernetes is just one of many.
Also, since Kubernetes was originally started as a Java project you should consider whether the team was trying to code more with Java idioms than with Go ones.
> 70% of cloud tools on CNF are built with Go; Kubernetes is just one of many.
Yes, that's what's called an ecosystem effect. But k8s has been the biggest open source codebase for a while, so it's far from insignificant.
> you should consider whether the team was trying to code more with Java idioms than with Go ones.
Turns out generics, the “Java idiom” in question, was eventually added to Go after many years, so maybe it was in fact useful and it's not just k8s devs who where idiots following “java idioms”…
> Nodejs has been more successful than Go in cloud?
Nodejs has been more successful than Go in pretty much everything except in orchestration tools (because of the ecosystem effect mentioned above) which is a tiny niche anyway. Go is a very small language on terms of use compared to Nodejs, or PHP, which are arguably language with a terrible design.
> I have nothing against Go, it's a tool that does its job fairly well and has very interesting qualities (fast compile time, self-contained binaries, decent performance out of the box), but the religious worship of “simplicity” is really annoying.
Typical Gate keeping the gate keepers of simplicity and pretty sure you code 23.5 hours a day on Haskell
Seriously, if you feel patronised by how someone designs a programming language, it might be best to move on. It's obviously not for you. Especially when you feel compelled to bad faith assumptions and ageism over it.
For those who want to feel the wind of coding freedom blow through their hair, I can recommend to spend some time learning Lisp. It offers the most freedom you can possibly have in a programming language. It might enlighten you in many other ways. It won't be the last language you learn, but it might be the most fruitful experience.
Doesn't ring true; why would a non-user of Common Lisp evangelize it?
Are there online examples? Can you point to someone's blog where they are proselytizing regarding Common Lisp, but it's obvious they don't have experience in it (perhaps betrayed by technical problems in their rhetoric).
Can you name a language that provides more freedoms? I used Lisp as an example for that side of the spectrum because I'm familiar with it, having used it for many years in the past. But maybe there are better examples.
What kind of "freedom", precisely, are you talking about? Freedom to write purely functional programs? Well, then you need Haskell or Clojure at least. Freedom to write small, self sufficient binaries? Well you need C or C++ then.
CL is a regular multiparadigm language with a rich macro system, relatively good performance but nonexistent dependency management, too unorthodox OOP, with no obvious benefits compared to more modern counterparts, and a single usable implementation (SBCL). If I want s-expressions based language I can always choose Scheme or Clojure, if I need modern flexible multiparadigm language I'd use Scala
All of them. You can do imperative, functional, and oop programming in lisp. As for small libraries, it’s because cruft is an actual hindance in lisp. It’s like unix tools, you can do a lot of stuff with them, but a more integrated tool that do one thing better will fare worse in others. A big library brings a rigid way of thinking to lisp flexible model. Dependency management? Think of it like the browser runtime, where you can bring the inspector up and do stuff to the pages. It’s a different devloment models where you patch a live system. And with the smaller dependency model, you may as well vendor the libraries if you want reproductibility. Unorthodox OOP? CLOS is the best oop model out there.
The thing is that Common Lisp has most of what current programming languages are trying to implement. But it does require learning proper programming and being a good engineer.
You should probably reread what I wrote, and lay off your patronizing attitutde. "It is just better, you do not get it" won't work here. Yes you can do functional in Lisp, as you can do it in even in C, but why? The support for functional style is laughable, compared to Haskell or even Clojure. CL advocates are fanatically fail to accept bitter truth: CL is dead language with once great set of features which now present in many many other languages.
No, they don't. Most languages turn dealing with code formatting, into an externality foisted upon either:
• the release managers (who have to set up automation to enforce a house style — but first have to resolve interminable arguments about what the given project's house style should be, which creates a disincentive to doing this automation); or
• the people reviewing code in the language.
In most languages, in a repo without formatting automation, reviewers are often passed these stupid messy PRs that intermingle actual semantic changes, with (often tons of) random formatting touch-ups — usually on just the files touched by the submitter's IDE.
There's a constant chant by code reviewers to "submit formatting fixes as their own PR if there are any needed" — but nobody ever does it.
Golang 1. fixes in place a single "house style", removing the speedbump in the way of automating formatting; and 2. pushes the costs of formatting back to the developer, by making most major formatting problems (e.g. unneeded imports) into compile-time errors — and also, building a formatter into the toolchain where it can be relied upon to be present and so used in pre-commit hooks, guaranteeing that the code in the repo never gets out of sync with proper formatting.
"Getting in the way of the users" is the right thing to do, when "the users" (developers) fan in 1000:1 with code reviewers and release managers, who have to handle any sloppiness they produce.
(Coincidentally, this is analogous to other Google thinking about scaling compute tasks. Paraphrasing: "don't push CPU-bottlenecked workloads from O(N) mostly-idle clients, out to O(log N) servers. Especially if the clients are just going to sit there waiting for the servers' response. Get as much of the compute done on the clients as possible; there's not only far more capacity there, but blocking on the client blocks only the person doing the heavy task, rather than creating a QoS problem." Also known as: "the best 'build server' is your own workstation. We gave you a machine with an i9 in it for a reason!")
Really, they do: there a millions of us coding in those other languages just fine, and automatic formatting has been a thing for decade, and I'm not aware of a single language out there that doesn't have such a formatting tool.
The only exception with Go is that you cannot change the default settings. But that's it. In any other language you can use a code formatter with the default settings and the “speedbump in the way of automating formatting” you talk about doesn't exist anywhere but in your mind.
> where it can be relied upon to be present and so used in pre-commit hooks
You know that a failing git hook aborts the commit? So that with any language, if the formatter isn't installed in the machine, the commit cannot be performed, which means that the formatter can actually be relied upon anyway. In practice, the hardest part is making sure people all have the git hook installed (that's not that hard but that's the hardest part).
As I said before, Go has many useful properties, but automatic formatting is definitely not what makes Go relevant, and the endless stream of Gophers who argue this are just ridiculing themselves in front of everybody else.
> You know that a failing git hook aborts the commit? So that with any language, if the formatter isn't installed in the machine, the commit cannot be performed, which means that the formatter can actually be relied upon anyway.
When making a trivial fix PR to an upstream FOSS project, if I find that a missing third-party linter install has force-rejected my commit (that I know has correct syntax)... then I just give up on making that PR. I can't be assed to install some random linter. (Third-party linters have a history of being horrible to install†.)
Small amounts of friction can be enough to shape behavior (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory.) Aggregated over a large project's entire community, this can make an appreciable difference in code quality over time.
† Mind you, a linter that exists as a library dev dependency of the project is fine, too. I had to pull the deps to build and run the tests, so the linter will be there by the time I attempt to commit. It's just linters that are their whole own projects that give me a jaw-ache.
> and the endless stream of Gophers who argue this are just ridiculing themselves in front of everybody else.
I don't even use Go! I mainly write Elixir, actually. Which also has a built-in auto-formatter.
To me, the nice thing about the formatter being built into Elixir (and of-a-piece with the compiler), is that when I use macros, the purely-in-memory generated-and-compiled code can be inspected in the REPL, and shows as formatted (because it passes through the auto-formatter), rather than looking like AST gunk. Without having had to pay that auto-formatting cost at compile time (because that would also be a cost you'd pay at runtime codegen time, which you might do a lot of if you've built a domain-specific JIT on top of the macro system.)
It's easy for programmers to focus on the technical details and forget the big picture. The technical aspects of automatically formatting code are relatively easy to solve. The difficulty is in the social parts. That's what Go solved by bundling gofmt with the language.
As a result, almost all Go code out there is formatted the exact same way and nobody has ever had to have the dreaded code formatting discussion about Go at their company. Eliminating such bikeshedding for every user of the language is a solid win.
That's why all the languages proceeding Go have adopted the same approach, e.g. Rust and Zig. Python's Black formatter has been directly inspired by gofmt as well.
Snarky response: that's more steps toward the long-held dream of the Google operations department: to be able to just issue all devs cheap commodity Chromebooks, because all the compute happens on a (scale-to-zero) Cloud Shell or Cloud Workstation resource.
Actual response:
• For dev-time iteration, you want local builds; for large software (e.g. Chrome), you make this work by making builds incremental. So it takes a few hours to build locally the first time you build, but then it's down to 30s to rebuild after a change.
• But for building releases, you can't rely on incremental builds; incremental builds (i.e. building on top of a cache from previous arbitrary builds) would be non-deterministic and give you non-reproducible builds, exactly what a release manager doesn't want. So releases, at least, are stuck needing to "build the world." You want to accelerate those — remote build infra is the way to go. Remote, distributed build infra, ideally (think: ccache on Flume.)
These remote/distributed builds do still cohere to the philosophy in the abstract, though — a remote build is not the same as a CI build, after all; the dev's own workstation is still acting as the planner and director of the build process.
It tries, but it's really more of an operational benefit (i.e. works to your advantage to enable build traceability and avoid compile-time Heisenbugs, when you the developer can hold your workstation's build-env constant) than a build-integrity one (i.e. something a mutually-untrustworthy party could use to audit the integrity of your build pipeline, by taking random sample releases and building them themselves to the same resulting SHA — ala Debian's deterministic builds.)
Bazel doesn't go full Nix — it doesn't capture the entire OS + build toolchain inside its content-fingerprinting to track it for changes between builds. It's more like Homebrew's build env — a temporary sandbox prefix containing a checkout of your project, plus symlinks to resolved versions of any referenced libs.
Because of this, you might build, upgrade an OS package referenced in your build or containing parts of your toolchain, and then build again, Bazel (used on its own) doesn't know that anything's different. But now you have a build that doesn't look quite like it would if you had built everything with the newest version of the package.
I'm not saying you can't get deterministic builds from Bazel; you just have to do things outside of Bazel to guarantee that. Bazel gets you maybe 80% of the way there. Running the builds inside a known fixed builder image (that you then publish) would be one way to get the other 20%.
I have a feeling that Blaze is probably better for this, though, given all the inherent corollary technologies (e.g. objFS) it has within Google that don't exist out here.
> give some kind of coherence to it (looking at you Java and C++)
I have never done any real programming in Java itself, but the parts of Java world that I learned while writing some Clojure circa 2015 felt pretty coherent. Now I'm curious what I missed.
It baffles me that so many developers are unable to use pre-comit hooks for their code formatting tools, that exist since the 1990's, to the point go fmt became a revelation.
That's hardly the point. The point is that there is a single format for the language itself and you don't have to argue about spaces vs tabs vs when to line break, whether you want trailing commas and where to put your braces.
You can format on save or in a pre commit hook. But that the language has a single canonical format makes it kind of new.
> A simple settings file set in stone by the CTO, such a hard task to do.
It does seem hard thing to do. Working over dozens of enterprise shops in last 15 years I have not see such setting done or dictated at all. So whole codebase used to be mishmash of person styles.
Any CTO who is aware of the impact that having an incoherent programming style can have on employee productivity, is likely going to arrive at the conclusion that the most efficient way to set such policy is to "outsource" it to the programming language, by requiring projects to use an opinionated language.
Then again, any such CTO is likely also going to be someone who tends to think about things like "the ability to hire developers already familiar with the language to reduce ramp-up time" — and will thus end up picking a common and low-expressivity opinionated language. Which usually just means Java. (Although Golang is gaining more popularity here as well, as more coding schools train people in it.)
You could look at Lisp. It's kind of the opposite of Go in this regard. You can use whatever paradigm you like, generate new code on the fly, use types or leave them. It even allows you to easily extend the language to your taste, all the way down to how code is read.
But Lisp might violate your set of absolutes.