DEV Community

loading...

Discussion on: Golang through the eyes of a Java developer - pros and cons

Collapse
mraszplewicz profile image
Maciej Raszplewicz Author

Thanks, for your comment. I really appreciate it, even if you don't agree. It is always possible to learn something new.

First of all, my reception of the language is mostly positive.

I know that I can handle errors in different ways, but it will not be idiomatic, most libraries do return errors, so I will have to wrap functions from some lib into my own. So different way (i.e. using panic) is not that good too...

About not reusing variables - agree, but there are plenty of examples, questions etc. where people do reuse error variables. Maybe they are wrong, but my conclusion is that reusing error variables is idiomatic.

You are right that I haven't tried VSCode (I use it but not for Go programming), now I have. It also has shortcomings... And extracting function refactoring creates worse results than in GoLand - it does not compile.

When it comes to parenthesis, this is what I am used to and find more readable. It is not that important though.

Error handling - my opinion is that it forces you to write less readable code. Catch/throw system without checked exceptions is what I like the most.

We can disagree because we are different, have different experiences etc.

Collapse
andreidascalu profile image
Andrei Dascalu • Edited

It's not that I don't agree. In fact, I'm familiar with the ideas as they're nearly the same as what I thought coming into Go from PHP. What I'm talking about is a bit of perspective on approaching a different language (and also a bit about separating what makes a language: aka the qualities of the language itself as separate from the platform, including its tooling and again separate from third party support in the form of IDEs).

Thing is, you should define what "idiomatic" means. From what I infer from conversations, it's mostly "the way of doing things that the language enforces or hints at" which is different than "how most people do it through materials/online howto's". I'm sure you also found that quick stackoverflow solutions and straight-to-the-point articles are hardly a collection of best practices. Reusing (or not) is not part of idiom, in this way. You could say that how most people approach solutions should be considered so (particularly because you'll see this in the stdlib, with the caveat that stdlib itself is a collection of tools and ready-made solutions made by people and hardly perfect) but in that case "idiomatic" loses any value since it's not a benchmark for current best practices and merely a mirror or what the majority o developers chose to do some time ago. Following the idiom in this way precludes progress and I've seen this first hand in PHP: it started as a bunch of useful scripts, then grew into a sort of procedural kind of thing before slowly developing OOP-ish ways. What's considered idiomatic has evolved, even if you'd find plenty of people nowadays that swear by procedural spaghetti code of ye olde days.

Thing is, I also liked the try/catch and lots of other stuff in PHP ... but it took learning a few languages that used different paradigms (ranging from slightly different to "other side of the world" different) to put some things into perspective and reconsider the qualities of what was familiar.