Go is a language that pushes remembering corner cases and failure conditions onto the programmer rather than the language and runtime itself.

When you already have to remember a myriad of corner cases for business logic, also remembering so many corner cases for your code hurts productivity.

I also believe that languages exist to make getting to an end result in given domains easier. Go does not make my life easier.

I really hope it gets generics. I wish it would do away with nil/null.

Nim is a very good language that actually accomplishes the simplicity Go wanted imo.

Go affords simplicity to the Go compiler writers at the cost of burdening Go users with having to remember inane things.

I don't think that's possible to retrofit onto a language. Best you can do is to add non-nullable types. But zero values are so core to Go's semantics that I kind of doubt it's possible to even add those in a sensible way.

Can you elaborate on this? I write go for 3+ years and I have no idea what corner cases and failure conditions do you mean.

Writing to a closed channel panics, but writing to a nil channel blocks forever.

Appending to a nil slice works fine, but inserting into a nil map panics.

If you have a function that returns an error struct, and you wrap it with another function that returns the error interface, nil returns from the inner function will no longer test equal to nil.

Defining a method with a receiver type of Foo, rather than <star>Foo, means all modifications to the Foo get silently dropped. This can also happen to methods that correctly take a pointer receiver, if their caller incorrectly takes a value receiver.

Maps are not threadsafe/goroutine-safe.

Expression evaluation order is not defined, and varies between compilers. (https://github.com/golang/go/issues/15905)

- Using an iterator more than once silently produces nothing. I notice this when I insert print statements to debug something, but then accidentally turn the following for-loop into a no-op. The Python 3 change that made more top-level functions return iterators made this problem more common, though I agree with the performance justification for doing it. It would be nice if iterating again after hitting the end raised an Exception, though I'm sure that would break all sorts of code that assumes it doesn't.

- Mutating function default arguments affects all subsequent calls. This is most common Python gotcha people seem to talk about.

https://gist.github.com/patio11/bc883d566778c323742432c203e6...

(You can see it here in the playground, but try it on your local machine if you don't believe me and/or think the playground has an inconsistent understanding of what time actually means: https://play.golang.org/p/ltdV9dI609 )

The docs are quite clear on this behavior and say "Timer will send the current time on its channel after at least duration d." -- key words being at least and says nothing about when you choose to read from the channel.

https://play.golang.org/p/lntgH6tkiF

See https://github.com/golang/go/issues/11513 and https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/golang-dev/c9UUfASVP... for some background.

  As someone who writes Go every day for work, 
  I can't agree that Go is simple.

Does it have "cheap threads", like offered by Go?

1 - http://nim-lang.org/docs/manual.html#parallel-spawn

Coincidentally, I just looked at Nim this evening, wrote some code and came away with the opposite impression. I'll copy-paste my sort-of-blogpost on this from [1]:

Nim itself feels a lot unlike Go and, interestingly, a lot like C++:

1. Non-orthogonal features. In C++, there are references, which are like pointers, but not quite, so you always have to think about which one to use. In Nim, non-orthogonal features include tuples vs. objects, and sequences vs. openarrays.

2. Feature creep. Just look at the language manual [2]: generic functions, type classes, 10 calling conventions (10!), garbage collection (not sure if optional or not), inline assembler, operator overloading, exceptions, an effect system, AST macros. Name any contemporary programming language feature, chances are that Nim has it.

Then there's the documentation. The language manual [2] is okay-ish, considering the size of the language. But when I dive into the library reference, the built-in module "system" [3] is so outlandishly huge and the documentation so badly formatted that it takes a lot of hunting to find what's in this module (and what isn't). Just look at all the duplicate entries in the navigation bar on the left. The system module should definitely have been split into multiple modules for the multiple concerns it covers, possibly with reexports in the actual "system" module to make sure they're all imported by default. Some parts should just be moved out of it, for example the whole file IO business belongs into "os" IMO.

Another thing that concerns me about the standard library is how many duplication is going on in there. There are at least 4 different XML parser AFAICS, and two regular expression libraries, both based on the same backend (pcre). This might be the same confusion that most languages suffer from in their pre-1.0 stabilization phase, but especially then, it's a strong argument not to use the language in production pre-1.0.

The thing that really killed it for me that I was able to produce SIGSEGV by accident, without the compiler warning me about it. I think I wrote something along the lines of:

  type Config = tuple
    someSetting:    string
    anotherSetting: string
  
  proc readConfigFile(path: string): Config =
    var file = open(path)
    defer: file.close()
    # TODO: implement the rest
    var cfg: Config
    return cfg
  
  var cfg = readConfigFile("./example-config")
  echo(cfg.someSetting) # this produces a SIGSEGV; probably because
                        # the memory backing `cfg` is not initialized

[1] https://github.com/holocm/holo/issues/8#issuecomment-2412822... [2] http://nim-lang.org/docs/manual.html [3] http://nim-lang.org/docs/system.html

However, if I write

    echo(cfg.someSetting[0])

Dereferencing a null pointer is not unsafe. The program cleanly exits. Compiling that via C is sketchy though, because the C compiler may treat provable null pointer dereferences as undefined behavior.

Is it as good at concurrent services as golang is?

Project success in the software industry is abysmal, and we still keep thinking we can spin up another language that will contribute to project success because it let's us express ourselves in new ways. Well, how's that working out so far?

The reason why golang appears to have such wide adoption in such a short period of time is that it really does seem to contribute to helping devs get their shit done. Massive amounts of working code are being written in golang, and that's good for the software industry as a whole.

Currently I run a massive project written in the standard issue kitchen sink corporate language (C#). It's got generics, functional extensions, all kinds of shit to make the most discriminating programmer happy. Well guess what, IMO C# for all it's features still doesn't serve the business of software dev as well as golang because it doesn't pull off what golang is brilliant at (easy to code for wide range of skill levels, easy to mentor, easy to test, easy to hire for). The result is difficulty finding productive devs, and a code base that is not up to my preferred quality standards.

This may be hard to swallow, but it might really be the case that you can get more quality work done with more devs if toolchain simplicity is emphasized over language features. If the evidence continues to bear this out for golang, then it's time for me to shed some language biases just so I can remain competitive.

My experience has often been that whatever feature is lacking in the language tends to be made up for by huge code bases that are impossible to navigate, or using frameworks that abuse whatever dynamic features you have in the language horribly with added complexity in tooling and debugging.

> easy to hire for

There are 100x as many experienced C# enterprise developers. And that is being conservative.

I think if you're proficient in one Java-like, you're single-digit weeks from being proficient in any of them, so if you're choosing your first, choose whichever one is easiest for you to go with. For a lot of Unix people coming to Java-like from Python or Ruby, that easiest choice is going to be Go: it's fully unixy but doesn't have the heavyweight runtime.

Agreed. Which is why switching your org from C# to Go is going to do nothing (at best) for productivity or project completion rates.

Edit: Likewise if you are having trouble hiring C# developers it is very unlikely you will have an easier time hiring Go developers (although for a few geographic locations it might be true).

Both Java and C# are really more suited to enterprise services. It is difficult at best to communicate with the underlying OS behind the VM. you really need to be using C / C++ to reach the kernel on Unix. Probably the same on Windows, though I'm guessing .Net provides some sort of integration.

Marketing.

Pre-1.0 version number would certainly hamper adoption in my $DAYJOB.

Edit: karma_vaccum123 has greatly edited the gp comment but for the record, Google has been using golang since 2007.

    - user defined record types
    - user defined sum types
    - switch/case statement with support for sum types
    - unified syntax for value and reference types
    - closures with lexical scoping
    - parallelism support
    - multi-pass compilation

I recommend watching "Growing a Language", a legendary presentation by Guy Steele: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ahvzDzKdB0

I do love the attempts of Go developers to rationalize Go's choices. But in the end it will end up being a hated language, universally recognized as a net negative in the industry. But that won't stop the working programmer from doing the same mistake again and again.

I've seen this meme being spouted so much every time Go's mentioned it's ridiculous.

No, piling up feature upon feature is not progress otherwise we wouldn't be using anything but C++.

Go is a language you pick for the right situation. If it's not enough for what you're trying to do, go for a different one instead of trying to expand in the wrong direction leaving you with warts, like Java's done, C++'s done, Python, JavaScript etc... which you will have to end up avoiding in order to write performant and clear code, counting on luck not to have to deal with code that abuses those features to create anti-pattern upon anti-pattern.

  >After all, Go ignores all progress in programming
  languages for the last 40 years.

  I've seen this meme being spouted so much every
  time Go's mentioned it's ridiculous.

---

Regarding the utility of supporting first-order functions[1]:

  I wanted to see how hard it was to implement this sort
  of thing in Go, with as nice an API as I could manage.
  It wasn't hard.

  Having written it a couple of years ago, I haven't had
  occasion to use it once. Instead, I just use "for" loops.

  You shouldn't use it either.
 

Regarding progress in programming languages[2]:

  One thing that is conspicuously absent is of course
  a type hierarchy. Allow me to be rude about that for
  a minute.

  Programmers who come to Go from C++ and Java miss
  the idea of programming with types, particularly
  inheritance and subclassing and all that. Perhaps
  I'm a philistine about types but I've never found
  that model particularly expressive.

The part about "particularly inheritance and subclassing and all that" is ironically a meme spouted by Go's community so much it is, if you'll pardon my borrowing your description, ridiculous. For the curious, there are many community "Go-isms" explainable by the Pike talk[2].

Even a casual reading of the "list of significant simplifications in Go"[1] (35 in all) is enough to reasonably support the "ignoring all progress" position.

Of course, YMMV.

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(programming_language)

1 - https://github.com/robpike/filter

2 - https://commandcenter.blogspot.com/2012/06/less-is-exponenti...

I don't see how that helps your argument. For loops are more than enough for that task, it's easily readable and universal.

And Go does support first-class and higher order functions so not sure what you're talking about here.

> [2]:

How's ditching inheritance in favor of composition "ignoring the last 40 years"? It's the biggest example together with goroutines that proves that phrase is a meme, and that we've learnt a lot on typing best practices as an industry over the past couple decades.

And as an added bonus, another thing that's a good example of Go actually looking back and improving upon what's been done before is the select statement. Most popular languages fall through by default with the switch statement.

Outside of examples on the internet, I can't recall right now the last time I've seen a switch statement in the wild that didn't break at the end of every case. Making the case (pun not intended) for a fallthrough statement and having switch/select break by default.

That's not unusual at all. Look what Fran Allen said about previous language from those guys - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11578995

http://cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/

This article was written to make Go look bad and unoriginal, but it inadvertently proves that Go is Algol's legitimate successor exactly _because_ it has all these features _and_ a working implementation that is available for wide variety of architectures and operating systems.

I wasn't aware that all of those working implementations had stopped working.

Popularity is just one dimension a language can be placed on. Java utterly dominates the volume of new code being written in regular industry and has most likely done so for the entire lifetime of Go.

And this says little about their other relative virtues.

For me however I just never felt happy writing Go code. I have a couple of open source projects with it, so I have put it through it's initial paces to see if we fit.

The language that did make me happy was Elixir. Everything about the language and the surrounding tooling is polished. You end up with significantly less lines of code that's easy to understand.

Here's just one example from me - both examples scrape some info from HTML:

Elixir: https://github.com/sergiotapia/magnetissimo/blob/master/lib/...

Go: https://github.com/sergiotapia/gophers/blob/master/scrape.go...

You tell me which one is nicer to look at and easier to understand.

However, the Go version is way easier to understand. Mind you, I have very little experience with Elixir. In the interest of being pragmatic, the easier code is to understand, the easier it will be to maintain, and we spend much more time maintaining code than writing it fresh.

It is a balancing act.

As an industry we don't "do" training on work time.

So how do you convince developers to work on learning and development during their own time?

One way is to make the language fun and interesting.

> I'm yet to meet a 20+year developer who is wowed by extensive/unique/complex features

20+ year devs don't like jumping onto the latest unproven technique/language. Don't mistake that for wanting few/limited features in a language.

20+year developers arent driving transitions to go. It is fairly new developers wanting to switch because it's cool, it's new, and it helps level the playing field by bringing experienced developers down a peg or two.

Elixir is way easier to understand than Go. If you will put one week into learning it, you'll be a lot further than you are with go.

I have a couple decades of professional experience, if you are building a serious system, you want Elixir. IF you are building a devops tool, where a single binary with no install process is what's important, you want go.

But given all the containerization and distributed programming people are doing these days using go for that kinda shows to me that most engineering is done by people who don't understand distributed systems.

That is very interesting claim, but there is something more than just tooling and number of lines of codes - a paradigm. Elixir is a functional [1] but Go is imperative [2] programming language. It changes a point in discussion quite a lot, especially when you say 'code is easy to understand'. Personally I prefer Elm over JavaScript/React, because it is 'easier and simplier', but I remember a situation in college when after C#-course we had introduced Prolog and F# and many of newbies found functional programming very difficult... But maybe it is matter of taste.

> Everything about the language and the surrounding tooling is polished.

I don't have strong Elixir experience, but playing with Phoenix framework made me really happy to see how many packages are well documented to create backend for web application. But is almost perfect, almost - because it is not Go.

Go is way more performant (Elixir have results comparable to Python or PHP[3]), has great virtual file system [4], auto generating docs (godoc), gofmt, gorename, golint, gocode (no matter which editor you use - VSCode, SublimeText, Vim you have great autocompletion) and a lot of other things (i.e. examples) which makes learning Go easy for newcomers (i.e. devs who are bored of PHP).

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperative_programming

[3]: https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r12&hw=...

[4]: https://godoc.org/golang.org/x/tools/godoc/vfs

1. https://github.com/mroth/phoenix-showdown/blob/master/RESULT...

2. https://gist.github.com/omnibs/e5e72b31e6bd25caf39a

3. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/phoenix-talk/hljH55fsqqw/eFX...

You made me curious how release 1.7 affects performance of popular routing packages for Go (Gin, Echo, Httprouter).

For instance, without changing too much, you could implement scrapeProfile like this: https://play.golang.org/p/sP34n9acy7 I think that reads quite nicely, although I'm sure someone else can do even better.

If you modified dumpToCSV to take an interface instead of the concrete type, you wouldn't even have to prepare the user structure. You could pass in the vcard directly.

Also the elixir-lang Slack channel is just full of incredibly nice people. :P

From what I've found so far, Elixir gives a migration path for just about everything except heavy number crunching. Several people who came to Go from dynamic languages have seemed to echo this sentiment.

Go to me reads like an ELI5 programming language.

Put another way, you can make something that looks simple and pleasing, but hides a lot of complexity that's required to understand in order to be able to do your work.

Sounds like something that won't hold up as well over time.

But concurrency in go is a terrible hack, it's just slightly better multi-threading with all the deadlocks and mutex and hassles that come with it. Channels and goroutines are not erlang processes.

That so many people think of go as a concurrent language shows how little people understand concurrent programming.

Every engineer who thinks they are decent needs to learn at least one good concurrent language (elixir or erlang would be my suggestions.)

And what in Go is not?

A whole page discussing the virtues of Go by insulting people.

Besides, while the language itself may be more verbose than it could be, the standard library is extremely pragmatic and terse. It's like the opposite of the standard C++ library. E.g. to see if a string starts with another string in C++:

    std::mismatch(prefix.begin(), prefix.end(), toCheck.begin()).first == prefix.end()

    strings.HasPrefix(toCheck, prefix)

In reality, these two methods do completely different things. `std::mismatch` is a completely generic algorithm that 'returns the first mismatching pair of elements from two ranges', which can be used for much more than `strings.HasPrefix`.

Sorting a slice is a pretty obvious counterexample.

No.

Python: toCheck.startswith(prefix)

JavaScript: toCheck.startsWith(prefix)

Haskell: prefix `isPrefixOf` toCheck

What other languages does Go compete with that don't have a "string starts with" in their standard library.

Since I feel I've proven my point about all other languages Go competes with having this function, what other helpful functions do you think Go has that it's competitors do not?

  to see if a string starts with another string in C++

  std::mismatch

  strings.HasPrefix(toCheck, prefix)

  toCheck.compare (0, prefix.length (), prefix) == 0;

  toCheck.StartsWith(prefix)

https://github.com/golang/go/issues/16721#issuecomment-24015...

...and I haven't felt this kind of pinch when using C#, ever. But what do I know? I'm just a .NET wage-slave pleb who's too mentally handicapped to see Go's glory.

Don't pretend that there aren't things in C# that are better in Go.

And I agree, the min/max thing is stupid. I never said Go was perfect.

I like generics and the things that come with it, like LINQ and manipulating abstract collections in a type-safe manner, thank you very much :)

[0] https://github.com/robpike/filter

Most languages which provide a reduce() permit programmers to provide an initial "carry-in" value. This is a neater and more useful way to handle the cases of a zero- or one-element list. Moreover, it lets you do more interesting things with the reduction. Consider the following, using ES6-style JavaScript to collect a set of the unique values of a list via reduce():

    function unique(list) {
    	return list.reduce(function (sofar, item) {
    		if (!sofar.includes(item)) { sofar.push(item); }
    		return sofar;
    	}, []);
    }

     func unique(list []int) (r []int) {
          for i := range list {
               if !includes(r, i) {
                    r = append(r, i)
               }
          }
          return
     }

    function unique(list) {
        return list.reduce((r, i) => r.includes(i) ? r : r.concat(i), []);
    }

The basic idea:

Take all the players, and all the buildings.

Filter out those that aren't enemies.

Filter out those that are currently invincible.

Transform that into a list of actual points in worldspace- the hitboxes for players, the AABB centers for buildings. (Not all player models have the same hitbox count.) Unless we are holding a weapon that does splash damage- then go for the feet on players (their origin). And if we hold a projectile weapon, do prediction based on the player's velocity.

Now transform each point into a 2-tuple (position, score), based on some heuristics implemented in another function.

Do a raycast to each point. Filter out those that can't be hit.

Take the point with the highest score, if there is one, and set our viewangles to aim at it. Otherwise leave them alone.

The actual implementation of this looked something like this:

  let target = get_players().chain(get_buildings)
               .filter(|e| are_enemies(me, e))
               .filter(is_vulnerable)
               .flat_map(entity_to_scored_aimpoints)
               .filter(|(score, point)| trace(me_eyes_predicted, point).fraction > 0.999)
               .max_by(|(score, point)| score);
  if let Some(target) = target {
     aimray = target - me_eyes_predicted;
     viewangles = vector_to_angles(aimray);
  }

To me, that's pretty readable (stuff specific to the game aside, like the trace.fraction ugliness- fraction is "how far" the trace got before hitting something, 1.0 meaning there's nothing in the way. the comparison is to handle some floating-point inaccuracy there), and handles some really annoying cases properly.

Suppose that you have a bunch of things implemented using map or filter. When someone writes parallelized versions of map and filter, all of the existing code gets the benefits.

Now suppose you have a bunch of basic functions implemented using reduce (sum, product, min, max, reverse, ...). Can these be parallelized? Yes - by throwing away the 'reduce' implementation, and starting from scratch.

The problem with reduce, compared to its more useful cousins map and filter, is that it is too powerful. Map and filter are more limited than reduce, but if you can express your computation in terms of maps and filters, you get something valuable in return. If you can express is in terms of reduce, you save a few keystrokes, and that's about it.

For anyone interested in this kind of stuff, I recommend Guy Steele's talk "Organizing Functional Code for Parallel Execution; or, foldl and foldr Considered Slightly Harmful": https://vimeo.com/6624203

https://lparallel.org/preduce/

And using these names, I would say that preduce seems much more useful to me than reduce.

For the compiler this makes optimization easier. For the reader it makes reading easier after learning what these recursion primitives do.

It is also less code, meaning less room for bugs.

[*] https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Go-Google

In distributed systems, go is fragile and dangerous -- because it will panic. IT has no supervision system, and it has the potential for deadlocks, in fact, unless you engineer around it, all coroutines and channels will produce deadlocks and can silently kill your program. When that happens you have no idea why things are broken-- nothings happening.

And this is a language without a decent debugger!

Do you know when it will panic? Do you know you can recover from panic if you for example want to communicate with other systems that this node is going offline?

> it has the potential for deadlocks

I could write that for most of languages that have mutexes. This is design problem, not language problem.

> When that happens you have no idea why things are broken-- nothings happening.

It's only true if you do not know how to use debugger and don't know how language features you use works.

I can't help but think the whole article is filled with bursts of dishonesty.

A language like C++, which let you use the proper data-structure in about two lines of code, is a lot easier when it comes to data-structures. While the Go programmer implements a multi-map, priority-queue or red-black tree, anyone else will have moved on to an actual topic of interest.

If you need a particular data-structure, surely having one ready in the toolbox is a net positive, not a negative.

You make a good point, too, that multiple-return being the only way to do errors is more ideal than the language saying "oh, we support that, but we also have exceptions, too!" At least in a language with Go's philosophy, you can expect other people's libraries and your own code to play by the same rules.

Go's error handling however is terrible, absolutely the worst and its tendency to panic is atrocious. Especially without supervision or restart capability. HEre's a spot where elixir has it right and is vastly superior.

I'd be happier if panic didn't exist, but it is extremely rare in real world programs and the std lib.

Not a fan of this sentence. Why try to make it sound like Maps are unusual or bad? Just as fundamental as the list to real programming.

It's interesting to me that this philosophy comes from the Go designers at Google, and that Google is also well known for keeping vast amounts of source code advancing in lock-step in a single repository. From reading the recent article on Google's source code repository structure, I believe that being able to reuse code (e.g. data structure implementations) without versioning headaches is one of the intended and actual benefits. It's of course not that surprising that two different areas (Go design and repository structure) might pull in two different directions, but these are two important high level issues so it does seem a little inconsistent to me.

That's such a weird statement. If anything, those are likely more OOP-related than FP-related, and he didn't really point out what's so bad about "more functional paradigms", besides the implication that it might be harder for new hires to pick up etc.

Anyways, I see that Go reduces the learning curve and simplifies lifecycle of huge projects, but at considerable costs about language features and expressiveness. I myself if working as a developer would rather not bear those costs just for the sake of the whole clogs of the organization running a bit more smoothly, and also so that myself would not just program day-in day-out en masse with everybody else out there in an overly simplified language that potentially puts me at more of a disadvantage in my career path. Maybe the leaders of huge companies would have other thoughts and there will definitely be developers who are happy to fill those roles, it's just not me.

Really? Nothing? Sure a language like Rust has drawn from many other concepts in other languages, but it has done so while actually bringing high level features to a language that has zero overhead costs. But yes, it's not simple like Go.

Did Go need to make all errors unchecked? There are no guide rails telling you that you forgot to check an error result. This is a runtime thing you need to discover. Is this actually simpler?

Go made the decision to allow for Null, even after nearly every other modern language and other older ones are trying to kick it to the curb; Swift, Rust, Scala, Kotlin, no nulls (the JVM ones have a compatability problem, as does swift with ObjC, but still). Is it simpler to delay discovery of Null data to runtime?

Go decided to not have generics, to keep the language easier to learn and more approachable. It's hard to argue with this one. Like lambdas, it can be a complicated concept to learn, but once you unlock this in you code, you write less code and accomplish more. So yes, it's simpler, but at too high a cost IMO.

To me the innovative feature of Go is the small runtime built into the binary making deployment dead simple and easy. This is a million times better than JVM, Ruby, Python, Perl, etc. This is a huge improvement over Java, and something every language should have an option for. Ironically this is also the least innovative feature, because this is how static binaries in C and C++ have worked for years.

I think this article is very well written, but I don't think it's fair to the innovation going on in other languages.

(Disclaimer: I used Go, discovered the three primary flaws as I listed above, and then searched for a better language. It would be fair to call me a hater, usually I try to avoid this, but in this case that's fine with me)

Plain parametric polymorphism is super easy to understand. Standard ML could be learnt in a week by someone who doesn't know how to program.

Admittedly, the interaction between parametric polymorphism and subtyping is tricky and subtle. And it seems most programmers have gotten used to taking subtyping for granted. But what if subtyping isn't always a good idea? Say, because it forces you to reason about variance (which humans always seem to do wrong!).

(inb4: Yes, Go has subtyping. When a struct conforms to a given interface, that's subtyping.)

Don't get me wrong, I love me some parametric polymorphism, but it's by no means a simple thing as far as I've seen. Especially if you care about the effeciency of things (you can fudge a lot more wih lots of indirection/allocation, like Java does).

I disagree. You should look at OCaml (and Standard ML, though the eqtypes in SML are a botch): generics are dead simple there. Much simpler than Go interfaces, in fact.

Sure, there's always "one more thing" you could add, but that's always true for anything in any language. Slippery slope is a fallacy for this reason.

> or else you force people to use dynamic checks/allocations/casts that reduce your type-safety and bog the code down relative to the "optimal" design

Which is what happens even more if you don't have generics!

Standard ML's `eqtypes` aren't a bad idea at all:

(0) They ensure that `op=` can only be used on things that actually have decidable equality.

(1) If SML were to be equipped with dependent types in the future, it would make sense to only allow `eqtypes` as type indices. First-order unification can be used on syntactic values of `eqtypes`, so the basic architecture of a Damas-Milner type checker can be retained, in spite of having dependent types.

OTOH, equality and comparisons in OCaml are completely broken.

A language designer can provide let polymorphism, refuse to add more, and call it a day.

> (higher) order/kinded types,

This is orthogonal to parametric polymorphism. Higher-kinded types are problematic for inference, and the way Haskell has implemented them has unfortunate consequences for modularity.

> where clauses,

This is just syntactic sugar. (FWIW, what I think Rust needs is better inference, rather than ways to make type signatures less verbose.)

> dependent types,

This is unrelated to parametric polymorphism.

> specialization

This is antithetical to parametric polymorphism.

> or else you force people to use dynamic checks/allocations/casts that reduce your type-safety and bog the code down relative to the "optimal" design.

Standard ML doesn't have dynamic checks or unsafe casts, and I don't find myself longing for them.

   This is orthogonal to 
   parametric polymorphism

   Higher-kinded types are 
   problematic for inference

In practise, Haskell needs only few kind-annotations to make kind inference possible. This is helped by unannotated kind variables having kind * in Haskell (IIRC).

Errr, sorry, I only saw “higher-kinded”, not “higher-ranked”. But, of course, you are right.

> That is true, but already type inference for rank-3 polymorphism is undeciable, hence also System F polymorphism.

Let polymorphism covers 95% of what most programmers need. So if a language designer feels particularly risk-averse (a perfectly legitimate position), they can provide just let polymorphism and ML-style type inference, and then call it a day.

Of course, higher-ranked polymorphism is a nice thing to have, and you can require type annotations when you use more (as Haskell does).

> In practise, Haskell needs only few kind-annotations to make kind inference possible.

A more serious problem with higher-kinded types IMO is that they wouldn't interact very well with an ML-style module system, where you can define an abstract type whose internal implementation is a synonym. `newtype` is an ugly hack.

   provide just let polymorphism 
   and ML-style type inference

My main caveat would be that even a basic language needs a mechanism to glue related code together, objects, modules, structs with row-typing, existentials, not sure. But something.

While not perfect, I think ML's solution is pretty reasonable: a separate module language, whose complexity doesn't infect the core language.

http://www.mpi-sws.org/~rossberg/1ml/

That's interesting. Why is that?

Not having "implementation inheritance" between structs helps a lot, though I'm not sure if Go's anonymous fields might pose a problem.

Type classes alone don't give you anything like Go's interfaces.

Type classes plus existentials give you something kinda like Go's interfaces, but requires explicit casts (in the form of unwrapping the contents of an existential constructor and putting them into another existential constructor).

Type classes plus rank-N types can express Go's interfaces, but at that point Haskell already has subtyping, induced by subclasses. (Or else how do you think “a Lens is a Traversal” is possible?)

Have you ever actually tried to teach someone who doesn't know how to program? It takes months, even when using a simple language like Python. Or even BASIC, which was designed specifically for beginners.

Standard ML is a good language (especially considering when it was developed, in the 1970s). Somehow a cult has grown up around it that prevents people from seeing that it isn't the solution to all problems, just another tool in the toolbox. Sad.

Yes.

> It takes months, even when using a simple language like Python. Or even BASIC, which was designed specifically for beginners.

I never said anyone can learn everything there is to programming in a week. I only said anyone can learn the Standard ML language in a week. You might encounter far more difficult things along the way, but they shouldn't be related to Standard ML itself.

Here's what my experience is with certain features in languages: They enable some programmers to do great things, while also enabling a few programmers blinded by hubris to do maddening things. Over the life of a large project, the unfortunate coincidence of different pieces of hubris driven code sometimes causes an outsized amount of frustration.

Analogy: Most people, most of the time, have the good sense to operate cars, drones, and high powered laser pointers without becoming a dangerous nuisance. However, there is a potential for a minority of users of such devices to cause far more than their share of public nuisance. Therefore, there are rules and restrictions about how such things are used by many people at scale.

So yes, as an individual you are probably just fine. But you aggregated with a whole bunch of other programmers is likely to be a different story.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

This is a narrative without specifics, and unfortunately always where the conversation seems to end with gophers. We accept some amount of features that can be abused because they offer utility that outweighs their potential for misuse. So how exactly are generics a worse offender than these other features or a worse tradeoff for their utility? Because from my perspective, being able to define parametric data types and functions is a huge win for safety and terseness of code without a lot of downside.

Exactly. Everything you add has a cost/benefit for a particular context. Evidently you disagree with how the Golang team has calculated cost/benefit with regards to generics.

Because from my perspective, being able to define parametric data types and functions is a huge win for safety and terseness of code without a lot of downside.

Terseness is a good thing? Some people say terseness is bad. Is safety the only issue or always the top priority? All production code exists in a specific context. It's best to tailor to your specific context. This may well mean that you may encounter a context where you do not want to use Go.

http://anomaly.org/wade/blog/2013/07/coding_style_terse_vs_v...

Clarity is good. Clarity comes from both including every relevant detail (which pulls away from terseness) and excluding irrelevant details (which pushes towards terseness). Clarity also comes from saying everything that has to be said exactly once and no more than that (which pushes towards terseness).

Unfortunately, when you program in Go, you often have to pay attention to irrelevant details, and you have to say what you want more than once.

> Is safety the only issue or always the top priority?

The benefits of typeful programming go beyond type safety. They also include: “economy of thought”, “fearless refactoring”, “less time wasted on fixing stupid mistakes”, etc.

Funny, but that's exactly what we Smalltalkers had in Smalltalk -- with far less of the "type system" enforced by the compiler and almost all of it in our heads. (That said, back in the day, we had tooling which was more advanced while also being more responsive, years ahead of everyone else, so our viewpoint might be skewed.)

That's why reasonable people want to have good type systems: People who think that they can keep the type system in their head are exactly the people whose opinion should be ignored.

Smalltalk doesn't let you say “this object responds to message Foo only when used in this part of the program”. In other words, there's no separation of concerns.

> and almost all of it in our heads

What you realistically can't produce entirely in your head is a proof that your program is correct, unless the language is explicitly designed to lift part of this proof obligation. That's exactly the role of parametricity: to help you separate concerns, allowing you to prove one small thing at a time.

In VisualWorks, there were different two ways of writing a short script to verify this in a matter of seconds. You could also sometimes achieve this with a few cascaded searches through the Refactoring Browser.

This doesn't scale to either large programs or programs not entirely written by yourself.

In ML, there's no need to search anything: the only admissible operations on a value are those sanctioned by its type.

> You could also sometimes achieve this with a few cascaded searches through the Refactoring Browser.

As a library author, you can't search code written by users of your library.

In ML, I can prove things not only about my own code, but also about how others may use it.

My industry experience clearly shows that you're just flat wrong -- with multiple large systems written by other people over the span of over a decade.

As a library author, you can't search code written by users of your library.

What kind of nonsense is this? The library author doesn't need to do such a search! The library users in Smalltalk would do such searches. Access to source was the norm. Decompilation in Smalltalk is trivially perfect, excluding local variable names, so closed source was fairly pointless.

Please tell me how a code search performed by library author Foo will ensure that library user Bar won't break invariants Foo intended to enforce.

> What kind of nonsense is this?

In ML, I can prove that users my library can't use my library wrong. Maybe they won't be able to use my library at all - they type checker will reject every attempt. But it guarantees that, if they can use my library, they will use it right, in the sense that every invariant I enforce won't (and can't possibly) be broken by users.

For example, there may be multiple ways to realize the same ordered set as a red-black tree (balanced differently), but I can arrange things so that the difference can't be observed by users of the ordered set abstraction.

> The library users in Smalltalk would do such searches.

Library users shouldn't be in the business of enforcing invariants that are only relevant to the library's author. See? This is what I mean by “Smalltalk can't separate concerns”.

I'm not saying all of this to be mean. It's been known for quite a while that parametricity is the mathematics of abstraction and separation of concerns [0]. If you need to insulate users of your code from your design choices, you absolutely need parametricity. (Or “social conventions”, but those don't work in the long run.)

[0] http://www.cse.chalmers.se/edu/year/2010/course/DAT140_Types...

Rewriting code is expensive. As my office knows well. We maintain lots of old embedded systems and have to periodically rewrite or rehost it because the old hardware platforms aren't available or aren't performant enough for new features. These become multi-year, multi-million dollar projects, for relatively little gain.

By ensuring that developers and architects conform to certain conventions, it means (in theory) that this code maintenance is much cheaper, and that rewrites can be avoided or minimized. This is a good thing and lets organizations be more flexible and productive, as their time and money is no longer wasted on the old things, but can be spent on the new things.

What you say doesn't make sense given how Go reflection is implemented. If it was really about limiting choice Go would have no reflection . Go reflection is basically a way to opt-out of its (poor) type system. You should never have to do that in a statically typed language yet Go reflection is used a lot in the standard library itself.

Furthermore let's be honest. What do you think is more complicated ? generics or concurrency ? generics aren't complicated, at all.

> We maintain lots of old embedded systems and have to periodically rewrite or rehost it because the old hardware platforms aren't available or aren't performant enough for new features.

But Go isn't for embedded system programming. You can't run Go on bare metal without an OS.

Enforcing conventions is of course a good thing! The problem is how Go enforces conventions:

(0) When Go enforces a convention mechanically, it's a triviality that can be adequately handled by external tools (e.g., naming, formatting, unused variables, etc.).

(1) When a convention is actually useful (e.g., the correct way of using an interface), Go's type system is too dumb to understand it, let alone enforce it.

> aren't performant enough for new features

Second-class parametric polymorphism (“generics”) is purely a compile-time feature. It can be completely eliminated (that is, turned into the non-generic code you would've written otherwise) using a program transformation called “monomorphization”, before any target machine code is generated. So there's no runtime price to be paid.

Second-class polymorphism is what Damas-Milner gives you: let-bound identifiers may admit more than one type, in which case every type they admit is subsumed by a type schema.

Second-class polymorphism rules out polymorphic recursion if you consider every recursive definition as syntactic sugar for applying a fixed point combinator to some expression of type `a -> a`, for whatever monotype `a`.

"The key point here is our programmers are Googlers [...] They’re not capable of understanding a brilliant language but we want to use them to build good software. So, the language that we give them has to be easy for them to understand and easy to adopt."

I'll concede there's the possibility for some weird tongue-in-cheekness here, but it definitely seems to be the canonical view among gophers that Go's paucity of features is about accessibility for programmers that don't understand them or find them cumbersome to work with.

I think this idea that "paucity = good" is so easily abusable that whenever this comes up from gophers I wish they would concede that this is an unhelpful simplification of what they must actually believe. Assembly language has possibly the highest paucity of concepts given it offers no ability to introduce language-level abstractions (other than say conventions about calling, etc.), but Go is nothing like this.

The argument can't be that paucity is good as a general condition, its that there are forms of abstraction and programming language features that Gophers find unhelpful or difficult to understand. The problem I have with this when applied to parametric polymorphism, is that Gophers already work with these concepts daily, so it can't be that use of them is complicated.

I also have a hard time believing that the ability to define parametric types and functions costs you anything. It's almost always self-evident when to use parametric types or functions, things that are "wrappers" or "collections" probably account for 80% of their use. I also don't think I've ever experienced ambiguity of choice with the feature. For instance I don't think I've ever been in the situation where I had to trade off implementing a generic definition vs. N specialized definitions. The frustration of using Go is actually that I now have to consider the later as a possibility or trade off type safety by using unsafe casting.

If there's a place where parametricity truly introduces complexity, I'd love to hear about it from a Gopher instead of a blanket statement about how "programmers don't understand it", "it decreases readability", or "Go is simpler without it".

Please keep in mind that there are differences at scale. What is "easy to work with" for 1 programmer over a month might not be so for 20 programmers over years.

The argument can't be that paucity is good as a general condition, its that there are forms of abstraction and programming language features that Gophers find unhelpful or difficult to understand

The argument is that simpler is better at scale. Airplanes can move freely in 3 dimensions, but airliners are constrained to fly in particular ways around busy airports and cross country.

I also have a hard time believing that the ability to define parametric types and functions costs you anything. It's almost always self-evident when to use parametric types or functions, things that are "wrappers" or "collections" probably account for 80% of their use.

I could see an argument for parametric collections and parametric sorting in Go. Not, however, for wrappers.

The frustration of using Go is actually that I now have to consider the later as a possibility or trade off type safety by using unsafe casting.

In your experience, what kind of "cost" has there been in unsafe casting to use collections? Even in environments like Smalltalk, where all use of collections amounts to "unsafe casting," I've rarely seen situations where a mistake of this type wasn't found trivially. Does your frustration come from having to abandon the "assured safety" the type system would give you, or does it come from an experience of the costs?

For me, it's entirely about expressiveness. This:

    reverse: 'a list -> 'a list

    reverse : list -> list

Beyond being able to express and communicate intent, there's the added benefit that the type system can statically check that the input elements are the same type as the resulting elements. There's also no worry about information loss associated with subsumption (the rule of subtyping that allows a value of a subclass to "become" a value of one of its superclasses, losing specificity in the process which may only be regained with a type cast (this is one reason I tend to favor row polymorphism as well -- no subsumption means no information loss and no need to cast)) because no subtyping is involved in this case of parametric polymorphism.

Parametric polymorphism is simple and well understood. And not exactly new either: it has been understood for some 40 years already.

> I could see an argument for parametric collections and parametric sorting in Go.

C++'s <algorithm> header is proof that there are lots of algorithms that benefit from being expressed generically, not just sorting.

> In your experience, what kind of "cost" has there been in unsafe casting to use collections?

Without type safety, there's a disincentive for decomposing things into smaller parts, because the cost of manually verifying that the parts are compatible is greater than the benefits of decoupling them. Would a Go programmer even dream of bootstrapping fancy data structures from simpler ones?

> Even in environments like Smalltalk, where all use of collections amounts to "unsafe casting," I've rarely seen situations where a mistake of this type wasn't found trivially.

At scale, the law of large numbers says that even improbable events will occur every now and then. Unfortunately, a program with even one bug is still incorrect.

What use is there for a fancy data structure? In practice, these occasions aren't that common. Many "fancy" data structures tend to exhibit bad cache behaviors if implemented naively.

At scale, the law of large numbers says that even improbable events will occur every now and then. Unfortunately, a program with even one bug is still incorrect.

Are you an undergraduate? Depending on how you interpret the spec (which isn't cut and dried when business requirements meet the real world) almost every page of production code has some kind of bug in it. Also, the law of large numbers isn't that relevant for most codebases and developer populations -- the numbers aren't that large. The effect of hubris is much larger in practice.

Improving asymptotic bounds. Providing functionality typically not supported by common data structures. (e.g., I want a key-value container that's a priority queue on keys, but concatenates multiple values associated to the same key)

> Are you an undergraduate?

No.

> Also, the law of large numbers isn't that relevant for most codebases and developer populations

The law of large numbers certainly applies to >100 KLOC codebases, unless your bug rates are somehow magically two or three orders of magnitude lower than the average.

It's nice to know that you remember stuff from the textbook. However, how often do you need to do something like this for real production code? Depending on what it is you normally do, it's entirely possible that you need to do this every other project. It's also possible that you never have a real need to do these things. (It's also possible that you never have a real need to do these things, but you do them anyways, which is far, far worse.)

> The law of large numbers certainly applies to >100 KLOC codebases, unless your bug rates are somehow magically two or three orders of magnitude lower than the average.

True, which is why I'm pretty confident that 15 years of Smalltalk development on many large code bases without running into a heterogeneous collection debugging conundrum is possibly a valid data point.

Contrast that with an endless parade of "hubris coding" in the same timeframe. My impression is that the damage caused by "hubris coding," or the gratuitous worship of "cleverness," far outweighs that caused by insufficient type information by 2 or 3 orders of magnitude. If you're going to be clever about applying your clever, you need to apply it in a fashion where it gives your company's business the biggest bang for the buck. Most coders in their 20's are just trying to impress their fellow programmers.

What I don't have a real need for is the ability to destroy the internal invariants of other modules. :-p

> True, which is why I'm pretty confident that 15 years of Smalltalk development on many large code bases without running into a heterogeneous collection debugging conundrum is possibly a valid data point.

Who says homogeneous collections are the only use case for parametricity? Parametricity is useful whenever you need to make sure that unrelated parts of your program don't accidentally rely on (or, even worse, alter) each other's implementation details. “Modularity”, as they call it elsewhere. Of course, Smalltalk has none of this.

> My impression is that the damage caused by "hubris coding," or the gratuitous worship of "cleverness," far outweighs that caused by insufficient type information by 2 or 3 orders of magnitude.

I don't separate concerns to be “clever”. Au contraire! I separate concerns to deal with my own brain's limited ability to simultaneously process multiple pieces of information. (And I'll be perfectly honest: I also separate concerns because it's beautiful.)

“Hubris” is a term I would reserve for those who write large programs whose constituent parts don't have fixed structure, yet claim they understand what's going on in the code. (Or perhaps they claim “the tests do the understanding”?)

I only ever recall this happening when someone inadvisedly modified or added a method to a library. In my actual industry practice, type information never did anything to "preserve the internal invariants of other modules." The only time we lamented the lack of type information was in large scale refactorings.

Who says homogeneous collections are the only use case for parametricity?

No one. However, that was your example. My argument is that's a really poor example. And now you are abandoning it.

I don't separate concerns to be “clever”.

I also like separating concerns. I'm also not a dynamic typing bigot, though you seem to be imagining you are arguing with one. You seem to have devolved into abandoning your points of arguments and portraying your discussion partner as a series of strawmen. How in the heck did you get here from parametric algorithms? This smacks of intellectual dishonesty.

“Hubris” is a term I would reserve for those who write large programs whose constituent parts don't have fixed structure

And earlier, you were claiming something about refactoring. Do you see a contradiction here?

Most languages don't have abstract types (not to be confused with abstract classes!), so there's that. Abstract types protect invariants of modules from external tampering. This is a mathematical fact.

> However, that was your example. My argument is that's a really poor example. And now you are abandoning it.

I'm not abandoning anything. I'm only saying that the use cases of parametricity go far beyond parametric collections.

> I also like separating concerns.

Good! Then what do you gain from the existence of reflection (which is pretty much the opposite of type abstraction), or the possibility of sending wrong messages? This is as anti-separation-of-concerns as it gets.

Even more worrisome is what you have said in another post: “Decompilation in Smalltalk is trivially perfect, excluding local variable names, so closed source was fairly pointless.” (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12340864) How can you pretend this is compatible with separating concerns? You're talking about inspecting the structure of arbitrary parts of a program!

> I'm also not a dynamic typing bigot, though you seem to be imagining you are arguing with one.

I've just made technical claims. I haven't personally attacked you. If you think I did, my apologies.

> How in the heck did you get here from parametric algorithms? This smacks of intellectual dishonesty.

I also request that you refrain from making personal attacks.

Anyway. Parametricity means more than you think. The inability to inspect the representation of an abstract type is an example of parametricity too.

> And earlier, you were claiming something about refactoring. Do you see a contradiction here?

Nope, I don't see it. Refactoring produces a different program with a different fixed structure. And the difference shows up when the old and new programs have different types. The reason why types are helpful is precisely because they guide the evolution from the old to the new program.

> The argument is that simpler is better at scale. Airplanes can move freely in 3 dimensions, but airliners are constrained to fly in particular ways around busy airports and cross country.

For one, I just debate the premise the simplicity has anything to do with cardinality of features/concepts. But let's take that argument at face value: then why _not_ assembly if this is the case? Why not a language with the absolute minimum number of concepts? I think if you interrogate this premise you'll find it doesn't hold a lot of water and that Go doesn't really aspire to this goal anyways. I think we have some amount of working memory for being able to intuit programming with a certain number of concepts. There's a valid argument that some languages suffer by breaking that barrier (though I personally think Go underestimates where that barrier is), but it seems incorrect that language designers should be optimizing for a minimal number of features.

I think complexity at scale has more to do with features that interact poorly (or cause poor interactions more frequently with a larger number of people). Specifically its about composition. For instance, there's a valid argument to be made that asynchronous exceptions (i.e. the ability to interrupt another thread with an exception) and locks poorly compose. Mutable state is a common example of a feature that's a detriment to composition. But parametric polymorphism, if anything, gives us a much greater ability to compose. It allows us to define functions that work on data arbitrarily parameterized by other types, which makes them conducive to composition. And likewise, we don't suffer ability to reason about composition at scale with parametric types. A parametric function does not gain complexity as more team members are added, more code is written, more deadcode accumulates, etc. Parametricity changes nothing at scale.

> In your experience, what kind of "cost" has there been in unsafe casting to use collections? Even in environments like Smalltalk, where all use of collections amounts to "unsafe casting," I've rarely seen situations where a mistake of this type wasn't found trivially.

That's an argument for Go to not have types. But Go does have types, and type safety is often espoused as a benefit of Go. If you're going to have types, it makes zero sense to me why you should not have parametric polymorphism, since this is the only way to have things like typed collections without opening yourself up to the possibility of casting errors. Frankly I find it bizarre that people claim that they have found type errors to be trivially fixable, because the scope of where a type error can be introduced is enormous in an untyped language... its literally every location that potentially calls into the code where the error occurs.

> Does your frustration come from having to abandon the "assured safety" the type system would give you, or does it come from an experience of the costs?

Yes, type safety is an enormous advantage to writing correct code in my opinion. It's one of the best mechanisms a programming language can give you for enforcing invariants about data. The curry-howard correspondence is a huge advantage to writing correct code. Every place a type checker isn't being used to delimit acceptable data is a potential source of a huge number of bugs. It's also a frustration because casting introduces conversation and type checking boilerplate that a type checker could ultimately take care of for you.

Okay, then you can throw away the rest of your post and stop right here. The overwhelming historical evidence is that assembly doesn't scale.

> That's an argument for Go to not have types.

Sorry, that doesn't follow. Is the logic here just because I mention Smalltalk, that I'm advocating late binding and the only type being Object for Go? Sorry, but that doesn't follow. The argument is that Go doesn't need a more complicated type system to avoid problems with heterogeneous collections -- because practice shows that even a simpler one can suffice.

> Frankly I find it bizarre that people claim that they have found type errors to be trivially fixable, because the scope of where a type error can be introduced is enormous in an untyped language...

Sounds like you're invoking freshman level false "common knowledge." Have you ever worked in an "untyped" language in a real project? What if a project simply used runtime asserts? Then a type error in a heterogeneous collection would be caught in unit testing. If it got out to production, it could be easily caught and logged. In 15 years of Smalltalk industry work I never encountered the kind of heterogeneous collection type error you're referring to in production. The closest thing I can recall involved the heterogeneous typed reuse of a local variable. (Which is simply bad coding style in Smalltalk.) In Go, you have a type system that provides much more feedback at compile time, and workable mechanisms for detecting the problem at runtime. So at least in this one instance (heterogeneous collections) there is arguably almost no practical benefit to parametric polymorphism.

(P.S. Technically speaking, Smalltalk is strongly typed with message passing semantics for methods implemented through late binding. It's not "untyped.")

Huh? I'm not actually arguing that assembly is a scalable language. I'm invoking a counter-example to the idea that a smaller cardinality of concepts is inherently a good thing. Assembly has a smaller number of concepts than Go, so by the espoused benefits of having a language with less features, assembly should be favored. But obviously this is not true, so I debate that Gophers actually ascribe to this version of "simplicity".

My point here is that Gophers need to examine their rhetoric a little more and get better at honing their definition of "simplicity", since its clearly not just having less "stuff" as Rob Pike seems to claim in every Go presentation.

> Sorry, that doesn't follow. Is the logic here just because I mention Smalltalk, that I'm advocating late binding and the only type being Object for Go? Sorry, but that doesn't follow. The argument is that Go doesn't need a more complicated type system to avoid problems with heterogeneous collections -- because practice shows that even a simpler one can suffice.

Your original question was how does unsafe casting introduce cost. It adds cost in exactly the same way that every other means of circumventing a type system or not having a type system introduces cost: it allows runtime errors to occur at points where data is illegally used.

Type systems are effectively proof solvers. Just like making an improper assumption in a logical proof can lead to a faulty conclusion, forcing a type system to assume a type for a value that it cannot prove can lead to a buggy program. This is why programmers who strong believers in static type checking take issue with casting: its a way of circumventing the protection that a type checker gives you, when instead you can add power to the type system for expressing your constraints or add means of showing the equivalency of different types.

> Sounds like you're invoking freshman level false "common knowledge."

There's no need to get personal here. I'm making a factual point: it's true that any code path calling into the point where a type bug occurs is potentially responsible. Nothing in my comment is invoking "common knowledge". Also you should keep in mind that invoking your "personal experience working on X large scale system in industry" is not a compelling argument. It's not even a comparative argument about an untyped language vs a statically typed language.

> Have you ever worked in an "untyped" language in a real project? What if a project simply used runtime asserts? Then a type error in a heterogeneous collection would be caught in unit testing. If it got out to production, it could be easily caught and logged. In 15 years of Smalltalk industry work I never encountered the kind of heterogeneous collection type error you're referring to in production. The closest thing I can recall involved the heterogeneous typed reuse of a local variable.

Yes, I have. I've worked in Python and Javascript for a couple large projects. I'm not going to get into my feelings about this, because I don't think it forms the basis of a compelling argument.

However, I take issue with the claim that these kinds of bugs are always trivially caught in unit tests. One thing to note about untyped languages is that they allow an infinite number of values to be passed to a function by virtue of being untyped, so there's no way to write an exhaustive unit test. This isn't unique to untyped languages (for instance, I can't write an exhaustive unit test in haskell for a function that accepts strings), but a sufficiently expressive typed language always gives me the ability to reduce the scope of my tests by writing more constrained types (for instance, with sized collection types using Data Kinds in haskell). Similarly, languages that disallow parametric types cannot express constraints about contained values in a type, which allows exactly the same sorts of bugs that an untyped language can have.

Unit tests are great, but they are better suited for probing the edges of acceptable inputs based on assumptions about the code under test, and are generally poorly matched to providing the guarantees of a type system. They are not perfect: they can suffer from laziness, code rot, faulty assumptions, etc. I've seen bugs in test code far more frequently than I've seen bugs in a type checker (in fact I don't ever think I've seen a bug in a type checker).

My argument here boils down to the fact that you can trivially show there's potential for human error here that a type system can protect against. The point of contention you have is that these kinds of bugs don't manifest in practice. In my experience they do, and they occur more frequently in larger scale systems where there's more invariants to juggle that a type system doesn't ensure for you. I'd also argue that this largely explains the resurgence of typed languages with more expressive type systems (like scala, rust, swift, idris, hack, etc.). Ultimately I think we just have to agree to disagree here.

> (P.S. Technically speaking, Smalltalk is strongly typed with message passing semantics for methods implemented through late binding. It's not "untyped.")

Untyped is commonly used in academic literature to refer to "dynamically typed" languages[1]. The strong/weak typing distinction is arguably imprecise or a useless distinction, especially for dynamically typed languages. For example, how does smalltalk prevent "type punning" when functions do not declare the types of values they may be called on? Perhaps you can make the argument that dynamic languages like these can justify their claim to "strong typing" by having builtin operators that do not make implicit conversions of the values they work on, but this guarantee doesn't hold in general in user defined code, so it seems like a useless distinction.

[1]: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9154388/does-untyped-also...

Guess they don't think so highly of their hires anymore.

By the way, http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/200732/google-admits-its-fam...

This may be considered cheating since it isn't baked into the language but there are tools to do this at build time, here's one: https://github.com/kisielk/errcheck

Which doesn't make code easy to read when there are 10th of these blocks in a single function.

Poor old Tony Hoare (algol was mentioned earlier (rightly) as an exemplar of innovation) but Null in a safe memory managed context is a different beast to a true Null reference.

Null appears then as something between a known state and an not quite an exception, it carries different semantics from either, and whilst this could be seen as more complexity, I think the "I just don't know" case in practicality is useful, if harder to reason about.

Your point about the runtime is very true. Partly because of this - error checking is overrated! Yes I said it! We have go code that has been running in a reasonably high scale production environment for over two years and there are `if:...;err != nil` blocks that have never been touched in millions of calls per day, for 2 years. We have redundant services and trap panics in the rpc handlers, the nil becomes very clear and the rest of the system makes good progress. We save lines, save tests, and release a single binary fast. One example of where Go helps us deliver value faster, by being able to choose to ignore exceptions. Many people find this very uncomfortable. I say they are mistaking where the true project risks lie.

It's funny, every language I know gives you an option to basically ignore the error and just pray. I get what your saying, but if this is the type of code you want to produce, you can still do that in other languages that have strong types around Null and Errors.

In Rust for example:

  my_possible_error.unwrap()

I suspect your "pray" == monitor closely and fix fast (often never).

I agree it can be problematic that there is nothing in the language that indicates that the author is explicitly in 'pray' mode. It could well be that even a brief defence of a missing error check during a PR code review is not worth avoiding (un-triggered) err handling.

Is rust the only good alternative here to golang if you one doesn't want to write c/c++ ?

There is little need for this kind of absolutism. Citing a haskell as one the best language in a contest where op ask about rust and c++ is dangerous.

To op : if your domain calls for modeling relatively 'type stable computation', and need strong correctness garanty, haskell is a great match.

'Type stable computation' and a strong correctness guarantee are some added benefits of Haskell, though any strongly typed language (like for example Rust) will have these qualities.

A nice benefit of Haskell that most other languages don't have is that it is explicit about side effects which gives you some extra confidence in the behaviors of your code. Related to this is its unusually powerful type system, which allows you to make some abstractions for generic code that are not possible in most other languages.

GHC 8 also introduces the Strict and StrictData pragmas[1] which allow you to make a module (or its types) fully strictly evaluated.

[1]: https://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/StrictPragma

So all the ML languages, Java, .NET, Pascal dialects, Modula-2, Modula-2, Oberon and its descendants, Ada, Crystal, Nim, D, Rust, Swift, Objective-C, ...

With the caveat that anyone who may be maintaining/using/enhancing your code will also need to be able to "unlock" this. Keeping the language simpler has benefits beyond the initial code development.

I'm curious, when was that being said? (Perl 5 was released in 1994, JavaScript 1.2 in 1997)

As programmers, we deal primarily in abstractions. Our programming languages offer formal tools for creating and manipulating abstractions. In my view, any language that offers more tools for abstractions is better than another language that offers fewer such tools. As a professional whose primary job is to deal with abstractions, any new kind of abstraction is of interest. All programmers should be not only willing to be constantly learning new techniques and new abstractions, but we should be eager to learn and apply these things. Bigger toolbox => better quality of life w.r.t. work.

Even at my day job, I've heard things like "that's too computer sciency for mere mortals". I'm sorry, are we not computer scientists? Are we in the habit of employing people who are not professional programmers to write our software? And to think I'm the only developer in the office without a master's degree, as if they all decided that once they graduated they were finished learning...

Heaven forbid you should have to learn something! To educate yourself! To grow in terms of knowledge and skill! Do we have "development goals" every year for no reason at all?

As if spending an hour or two learning something would kill you!

AAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

Allow me to disrupt your null and Interface {}.

I am not sure what improvement you are talking about. Deploying Go apps requires recompiling for the target platform. On JVM, you only need to install the JVM. There are also tools to wrap JVM apps in executable files that will automatically download and install a suitable JVM.

I'm a longtime Java engineer, it's a great language, but I do think the compile once thing isn't as big an advantage anymore.

With the advent of the LLVM, it's easy to target specific machines. rustup, even makes it possible to build binaries for every target environment you have.

And let's be honest, how many people target more than Linux/x86_64 on the server side? Even if you target FreeBSD or Windows, my bet is that your still generally only targeting one platform.

Btw, Rust has a great std lib that is very portable across all major platforms. https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/getting-started.html

But the classpath and jars? Write your application, 'gradle distZip', copy zip to target and unzip, invoke the launch script Gradle generated, done.

And if you can't be bothered to unzip, there's: https://github.com/pivotal/executable-dist-plugin

I agree with the classpath issue and hopefully it will be fix in Java 9. Separate jvm install? Why? JVM is backwards compatibility.

> And let's be honest, how many people target more than Linux/x86_64 on the server side.

Those that develop non server apps since Java is a general-purpose language.

The JVM is, but sometimes there are things that require specific bug fixes in the GC for example where it's just a big issue combining the jars with the JVM etc.

My only put is that a single thing to deploy is easier than multiple.

So you surely should be aware of the existing options to compile Java to native code, just like Go.

There would be paralysis of choice if when you install Go you were forced to choose from that list, but you aren't.

I thought go get wasn't a package manager /s

The entire build chain with Go is probably one of the most frustratingly limited build tools I've ever used, which is probably why nearly every Go developer I've met has switched to using one of the third party options.

The latest Go implementation (Go 1.7) has made Go a lot faster. I would argue that it closer the speed of executables generated with GCC (gcc/g++) than OpenJDK, the Oracle JVM, Mono or the .NET compiler for C#.

Go (the language) can be made just as fast as C (the language), for many cases. Go has the advantage of making it much easier to use multiple processors, though.

Go 1.7 performs nowhere near the set of optimizations that GCC and LLVM do. GCC/LLVM have a huge number of algebraic simplifications (InstCombine), aggressive alias analysis, memory dependence analysis, instruction scheduling, an optimized instruction selector, a highly tuned register allocator with stuff like rematerialization, SCCP, etc. etc. It will take years and years for Golang to come close.

> Go (the language) can be made just as fast as C (the language), for many cases.

No, it can't. The M:N scheduling model will always have some overhead relative to 1:1 if you don't need the performance profile of C10K-style servers. The dynamic semantics of "defer" is an unavoidable performance tax over RAII. Unwinding is mandated by the language, inhibiting some optimizations. There is little control over allocation: language constructs allocate in ways that are not immediately obvious. The fact that interfaces result in huge numbers of virtual calls results in a good amount of overhead that (unlike Java) Go can't even eliminate with inline caching, because it's AOT compiled. This is just off the top of my head.

> Go has the advantage of making it much easier to use multiple processors, though.

Not really. Go's parallelism primitives are just as low-level as those of C. The "one size fits all" scheduling algorithm is a poor fit for getting the most performance out of multicore. The lack of generics is a real problem: it prevents you from using optimized concurrent data structures without paying the tax of interface{} or going through code generation hoops.

In any case, the lack of SIMD basically kills Go's applicability in these domains.

Conversely if you're using C/C++ through a ton of heap/virtual pointers then you're losing a lot of the value the language brings and should be using something higher level.

Escape analysis, like any such analysis, gets much more difficult in the presence of higher-order control flow. Currently the Go compilers punt on higher order control flow analysis. And Go uses higher-order control flow in spades, due to its heavy reliance on interfaces.

The end result is that lots of stuff is heap allocated.

> Java where everything is a pointer and gets spread out all over memory.

That's not true for Java. Its generational garbage collector performs bump allocation in the nursery, yielding tightly packed objects with excellent cache behavior. Allocation in HotSpot is like 3-5 instructions (really!)

I think the HotSpot approach makes the most sense: instead of trying to carve out special cases that fall down regularly, focus on making heap allocations fast, as you'll need to make them fast anyway. After that, add things like escape analysis (which HotSpot has as well).

Actually, even Go isn't helping as much as it could here -- sometimes you want to have an array of objects that lays out each column (field) of memory contiguously, which Go gives you no easy way to do. But then neither does C or C++.

Isn't allocation just a couple instructions for basically GC languages?

If those GC'd languages have a precise generational GC with bump allocation in the nursery. Go doesn't (and the proposed GC design doesn't allow for this, unfortunately).

When I see this link I get different impression.

http://mechanical-sympathy.blogspot.com/2012/10/compact-off-...

It is only heavy use of sun.misc.Unsafe and unidiomatic coding style that give Java semblance of memory efficiency.

Considering the popularity of memory compact Java collections like Fastutils etc I feel that memory bloat of standard Java is very common issue plaguing Java applications.