Why is Go so fun to write in, Jow Forums? It's so easy to use and I enjoy programming again

Why is Go so fun to write in, Jow Forums? It's so easy to use and I enjoy programming again.

Attached: go.png (607x318, 17K)

Other urls found in this thread:

davidnix.io/post/error-handling-in-go/
github.com/aykevl/tinygo
djhworld.github.io/post/2018/09/21/i-ported-my-gameboy-color-emulator-to-webassembly/
blog.golang.org/errors-are-values
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>inb4 no generics
also error checking is tedious

Because it was specifically built to be accessible to idiots like you

I wanna learn. What kind of projects is go usually used for? Can't really get an embedded system or something. But I do want to make something usable for Linux desktop. Complete beginner but I tend to learn as I go.

>Why is Go so fun to write in, Jow Forums?
It was specifically designed to be very straightforward for anyone to get into. If you already knew programming before you could most likely pick it up in basically no time. Not many languages are designed this way specifically.
But just wait a little. There are many situations in which you'll notice that Go is not always that fun to write in.

Its best use is for server side web related stuff.

> enjoying Go

you do know that it is literally designed to be plantation software, in pretty much every sense, right?

Attached: 63620936-vector-set-of-6-women-faces-skin-chart-color-index-.jpg (1300x1300, 137K)

once you start doing anything big with it, you will know how painful and retarded it is

if err != nil {
return
}

Attached: 1516300857391.jpg (358x373, 42K)

>Normal
I'm triggered.

yet

t. "programs" in a language that doesn't have ++ because "it's too confusing and prone to UB"

My friends at work had to use Go for a project and hated it. Apparently the compiler is too strict, according to them. What do you like about it?

Can you please stop making fun of me, Jow Forums-sama?

Attached: 19bfd3f941df8dd6fe6678c3c8c01a31777ab536859961560a7c78359187adaa.jpg (500x681, 70K)

You don't really need generics in Go. I've written a number of large projects in it and haven't run into a case where generics were absolutely necessary.

People should try to gain a better understanding of Go's interface-based approach rather than immediately calling for generics in the language.

davidnix.io/post/error-handling-in-go/

The compiler is strict insofar as it enforces best practices in many cases.

Aside from all the normal sanity checking you'd expect, it'll also prevent you from having any unused variables or imports.

Seems like more work to start with, but in the long run you end up with very maintainable code. Besides, you wouldn't want a bunch of unused garbage floating around, anyways.

Want to use Go in embedded stuff? have a look at github.com/aykevl/tinygo

Notably supports Arduino/AVR stuff

Go is a general purpose language, so you really can use it for just about anything.I haven't written any graphical applications in it, though (mainly cmdline tools/servers/etc).

I was reading over djhworld.github.io/post/2018/09/21/i-ported-my-gameboy-color-emulator-to-webassembly/ earlier which was pretty neat. It's a GBC emulator written in Go, but since the latest Go releases support wasm as a compilation target, the author ported it to the browser.

The alternative is gotos, I mean exceptions.

Every time people bring up the err != nil meme I always point them to blog.golang.org/errors-are-values

Go's error handling is pretty sane (and reads really clearly). I'll be interested in seeing how check et al. works out in Go 2.

you will never have error and "null" handling as comfy as Rust, this goshit is retarded

>Aside from all the normal sanity checking you'd expect, it'll also prevent you from having any unused variables or imports.
This is mostly what they hated, I think. I'm not on the same project as them, but the project I'm on uses c++ with some strict settings so that the build will fail in the cases of unused variables. I like it.

Exceptions are not gotos dumbass. Not even close. They're excellent constructs if used appropriately, and even if terribly abused it's not the end of the world.

You're right -- gotos are much clearer and more understandable because they only work in the scope of a single function.

>Gotos only work in the scope of a single function.
Ask me how I know you've never seen a real goto in your life.

Exceptions can only go up the call stack. That's their scope. It's a force return for anyone between the throw and catch because not catching is an opt-out for handling exceptional conditions. It's a very clean way of solving the "who the fuck deals with this" problem.

damn, they should have an IQ question instead of this captcha bullshit to prevent retards like you from posting