OmegaLemmy@discuss.online to Programming · 12 hours agoI shouldve just learnt Go I'm getting clowned on by the fucking ai I'm gonna diediscuss.onlineimagemessage-square15fedilinkarrow-up166arrow-down120
arrow-up146arrow-down1imageI shouldve just learnt Go I'm getting clowned on by the fucking ai I'm gonna diediscuss.onlineOmegaLemmy@discuss.online to Programming · 12 hours agomessage-square15fedilink
minus-squareBatmanAoDlinkfedilinkarrow-up4·3 hours ago It is similar to old error codes, but I feel that this makes one always have to be mindful of error handling and the non happy path Technically you need a separate linter (errcheck) to ensure you don’t just ignore errors. This is…not great. (That should have been a compiler error.)
minus-squareSilverSharklinkfedilinkarrow-up2·3 hours agoYes, true. Having it built in in the compilation would be nice. Or at least having errcheck as a tool which already comes packed with Go. Go has changed over time to include more things like this. Maybe one day this will be addressed.
minus-squareBatmanAoDlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 hour agoYeah, I was particularly glad to see the change in loop variable semantics become a stable part of the language. That was a terrible footgun. There are other things I dislike about Go, but I do think it’s improving while maintaining its better qualities, which is no small feat.
Technically you need a separate linter (
errcheck) to ensure you don’t just ignore errors. This is…not great. (That should have been a compiler error.)Yes, true. Having it built in in the compilation would be nice. Or at least having errcheck as a tool which already comes packed with Go.
Go has changed over time to include more things like this. Maybe one day this will be addressed.
Yeah, I was particularly glad to see the change in loop variable semantics become a stable part of the language. That was a terrible footgun.
There are other things I dislike about Go, but I do think it’s improving while maintaining its better qualities, which is no small feat.