Lines of code is a complete red herring. It takes me less time to read and review 500 lines of Go than it does 100 lines of JavaScript.
Sometimes - especially in other languages - you see a piece of "elegant" code that does something complex in line 3 lines, and you think "hmm, this is a puzzle, and I'm going to be staring at it for 20 minutes before I'm convinced that its 100% correct."
We actively tell our engineers not to be clever. Write boring code that is obviously correct, and don't worry if your boring code is 25 lines when the elegant code is 8. It takes you longer to write the elegant code, and it takes the reviewer longer to read it, and often times (though not always ) it's also more difficult to test.
I love Go because of how boring and consistent and easy to read it is. The language and the task of "programming" melt away and instead you get to focus on solving problems.
Study after study has shown people fail at repetitive tasks, it is likely you do a much poorer job reviewing that 500 lines of Go code than your javascript.
Using generics isn't 'clever'. It's like saying a loop is clever. It's abstraction, the opposite of clever.
And it would have been far harder to read for those new to the generic code base. Complex abstractions make people feel smart, they rarely make code easier to understand or maintain.
Optimizing for people that are new to a codebase seems like a mistake to me: onboarding costs are relatively minimal and finite (per developer) whereas maintenance costs have no fixed bound: if generics let you exclude invalid states by design (and they do: this is one of the biggest advantages of parametric polymorphism vs. interfaces), they will be useful for keeping maintenance costs under control.
You definitely want to optimize for people who are new to a codebase. Over enough time, the codebase grows to a point where essentially _everyone_ is new to each area of the code, because nobody has touched that code in 2-3 years and the person who wrote it may not even be with the project anymore.
Even for your own single-person projects - if you get fancy with the code, 6 months later you find it's a lot harder to get back into and mess around with than if you had written the code as though you were presenting it to a beginner.
Management is responsible for making sure that doesn’t happen, by retaining experts and demanding documentation and investing in ramping up new experts. Making the code bigger because each line does less is not going to save us from nobody understanding prod, and a short learning curve puts a low limit on the value of our staff (who quickly run out of tools and stop improving in clarity and productivity).
You want patterns that are well-known to the maintainers, but this is different from “optimizing for the new”: consistent idiomatic use of a library like XState or Ramda in a JavaScript project can cause a high onboarding cost (because the new developers don’t know the library well) without any corresponding ongoing cost.
I’m guessing you like Haskell and similar languages, because that’s the natural conclusion to your line of reasoning.
I don’t agree with you, but I could be wrong. There are plenty of languages that are aligned with your point of view. I like go because it was going a different direction, and I hope that doesn’t change. You can use Haskell, scala, typescript, etc to get what you are looking for.
If people would stick to common generic data structures (like a map/list that can handle any datatype), i'd be fine with abstractions.
But some people have a tendency to play code golf with their codebases.
I have, for example, encountered a "generic data structure" that looked like a normal linked list on the surface. BUT, it actually sorted the largest three items in the first 3 cells and the average in the 4th.
That was multiple days of work wasted because someone decided to be cute with their data structures. And that wasn't even the only one of such "generic" monstrosities in the code.
Generics (and other abstractions) are not the root cause. Go was a pragmatic defence against mediocre developers. The majority of developers are mediocre by definition, and will abuse _any_ abstractions to create Rube Goldberg contraptions and monstrosities.
Well there is a valid point of abuse in abstractions. The ruby world is a disaster because of the power provided combined with people reaching out to all sorts of abstractions the entire time for purely experimental reason.
It's true that applicative code shouldn't need generics in probably more than 90% of the times, however the lack of it affects library authors quite heavily
No, it's relative. For the top 5% - 10% of developers, generics are a useful tool for doing their job efficiently. For the bottom 50% of developers, generics are complex and confusing, and only provides more footguns.
For 0.5%-1% C++ is a powerful tool which allows to quickly (thanks to rich abstractions) to write high-performance code.
For merge mortals it is a tool hard not to misuse full of hidden traps and debugging of code written even by the very best developers (surprise - it has bugs too) is a challenge.
Go just did a step towards C++, even if a tiny one.
And the top 1% of developers know that you are most productive when you stick to the simplest primitives ;)
I jest, but I also don't. All the best developers I know strongly prefer footgun-free libraries and primitives. The advantage is that you don't _need_ to spend brain cycles checking and double checking that it was written correctly, and when you want to make changes you don't need unwind an elaborate abstraction to stretch it further.
In martial arts (I'm a second degree black belt), the third move you learn is the round house kick (turned leg kick - the first two moves are the punch and the straight leg kick). At the olympic level, 70% of all points are scored using a roundhouse kick.
The other funny thing about the roundhouse kick is how much you can learn from watching someone do a single one. You can tell the difference between someone with 2 years of experience and 3 years of experience, and you can _also_ tell the difference between someone with 15 years of experience and 20 years of experience.
The point of this story being that masters are masters not because they can do elaborate techniques, but because their command over the simplest techniques is superlative.
I've found in life that this applies to pretty much everything. Martial arts, programming, painting, cooking, and effectively any task that definitively has some people who are better than others.
Generics use the type system to make the compiler check the code for you. It makes the code easier to understand, more correct, and concise if you use them as they were intended. It avoids tedious and error prone duplication of logic. Create ONE efficient debugged implementation and reuse it as much as possible. The crappy workarounds for generics introduce their own complications and issues.
But I know what you mean. I've worked on Scala code for years and seen less mature developers over-engineer things and get way too clever with the type system. Scala is a really practical and powerful industrial language that requires some maturity to use the abstractions sparingly. It's only good for the top 5% of developers.
However, Go doesn't have such a powerful type system. It looks like the Go designers implemented relatively simple generics. You have to draw the line somewhere. If simple Go generics are too confusing and complicated then that developer should probably find another job, as generics are a basic concept in programming. The Go designers are pragmatic people, and they've decided that relatively simple generics will make things easier in mainstream commercial codebases.
so as an example, I've used priority queues a lot. you need them for Dijkstra.. apparently golang has a heap package which lets you push and pop `interface{}`. sure you can cast, and I guess people have to, but why couldn't Go just call `interface{}` object or any? the awkwardness of the convention suggests an unwillingness to accept failure.
Parametric polymorphism is a better fit for container types IMHO. There are some interesting notes here…
In Go prior to generics, interface{} is an escape hatch less frequently needed but not necessarily much safer than void*. Post generics, interface{} is suddenly more useful and will be aliased by ‘any’.
The way the std lib heap works in Go, an implementation doesn’t have to mention interface{}. Using the Go std lib solution is about satisfying a few interfaces, defining some methods for sorting and swapping over the element type. The use of interface{} is internal.
Go’s generics solution is going to have type constraints, which I think will be very familiar to some and probably new to others … So, the Go generics PQ should still require some constraints on elements, not ’any’thing will work. I’ve really enjoyed constraints in languages and it’s not quite natural in C++/Java, but Go’s interfaces already do some ‘constraint’ work conceptually and can be used as constraints in Go’s generics syntax. I’m interested to see how this plays out.
You can cast void* to anything you want. With interface{} you get a type check, either through an assertion or a panic. That is a big difference in safety.
Fair point. Maybe there are contrived cases that can get nasty (an interface{}-typed variable boxing a function is possible, not so with any non-empty interface ), but in practice the pathology would be ‘panic’ more than ‘here are the keys to the exploit kingdom’, if this is what you were thinking.
I was thinking more about silence where someone expected a greater degree of compile-time type safety than they really had, or relatedly e.g. the subtleties in JSON encoding / decoding where there is silent data corruption that could fall through the cracks - mostly I feel like I avoid these things by not using interface{}; I certainly did not grasp that without some experience with the language.
