Go says it's a simple language but everything in go is weirdly and unnecessarily complex.
Instead of Handlerfunc being a type it should be an interface. Then you should be able to pass in any function with the same sig because it obeys the interface.
Also you should be able to define an interface on struct members and pass in any struct with those attributes.
But no, you have to go jump through hoops to accomplish something other languages are able to accomplish with ease.
What are you smoking? You have a Handler interface and you can pass any function with req, res signature as a parameter to whatever accepts the HandlerFunc...
I disagree. I think the language is complex which makes the code more complex than it needs to be.
In the case of this article for example you should be able to write any function that fits an interface and pass it in to the http.Handle function. That would be a simple language. Define an interface, accept any function that accepts that interface, write function that obeys that interface, pass it into the first function. That would be simple.
So my understanding is they could have taken the simple approach you outlined. But to allow for more functionality on middleware they wrote it so that you can give the handler any kind of object, a function, struct, pointer.
So it could have been as simple as write a function that fits this interface. But the people who wrote that library also wanted to have the ability to pass a struct that implements a specific function in case someone wanted to implement middleware that needed to maintain state. But this is just from a glance so maybe I misunderstood the article.
This seems more like a library design decision than a language shortcoming
So if you give a chain HandleFunc, to the router, if one of them is a struct, the method in the struct can alter the struct as it handles all of the incoming requests.
So it's not global to the entire program, it's held by whatever holds the chain. But the same struct is used any request the chain handles. So when you say global if you just mean that every request hits the same struct, then yeah the struct is global. But it's not like anything can access the struct, and if a different middleware chain is used on a different path you also won't get the same struct.
Note, I haven't tested any of this, though this is just what I understand from reading the article.
In my very little experience with Go, I got the impression that it is a language that was initially designed to be simple but then a lot of little things were progressively added on top to support various features and use cases, making it not so simple anymore. I do think there are merits to the language, but there are awkward or incohesive things in it. Like, Rust, for example (which I have used very little too), is definitely a complex language, but its complexity seems somehow more justified and internally consistent.
Go could have been a simple language and it would have been a better language if it was simple. There are good ideas in there but seems like every good idea only got implemented about 80% and then they decided to fuck it up or just leave it undone.
Unfortunately it seems like large companies like it because you can hire a joe off of a bootcamp and have them start closing tickets in about a week.
You can fuck up and make the language more complex and that in turn make the code kore complex.
Success is not always given.
If you’re good, you can provide for simpler code by more complex language.
If you’re a genius, you can provide for simpler code by making a simpler language.
I’m not a genius, so I can’t provide you with an example of the last one, just know it is a possibility. Most of the time, I guess we strive for #2, and accidentally may land into the territory of #1 or more rarely #3.
Maybe that’s one of the reasons Google hasn’t buried it yet, like it has so many projects. A small and low-profile language team can go a long way slipping past cost-cutting reviews.
myringotomy@reddit
Go says it's a simple language but everything in go is weirdly and unnecessarily complex.
Instead of Handlerfunc being a type it should be an interface. Then you should be able to pass in any function with the same sig because it obeys the interface.
Also you should be able to define an interface on struct members and pass in any struct with those attributes.
But no, you have to go jump through hoops to accomplish something other languages are able to accomplish with ease.
majhenslon@reddit
What are you smoking? You have a Handler interface and you can pass any function with req, res signature as a parameter to whatever accepts the HandlerFunc...
PrimozDelux@reddit
As you state, take the complexity out of the language and it ends up in the code
myringotomy@reddit
I disagree. I think the language is complex which makes the code more complex than it needs to be.
In the case of this article for example you should be able to write any function that fits an interface and pass it in to the http.Handle function. That would be a simple language. Define an interface, accept any function that accepts that interface, write function that obeys that interface, pass it into the first function. That would be simple.
What is described is weirdly complex.
loozer@reddit
So my understanding is they could have taken the simple approach you outlined. But to allow for more functionality on middleware they wrote it so that you can give the handler any kind of object, a function, struct, pointer.
So it could have been as simple as write a function that fits this interface. But the people who wrote that library also wanted to have the ability to pass a struct that implements a specific function in case someone wanted to implement middleware that needed to maintain state. But this is just from a glance so maybe I misunderstood the article.
This seems more like a library design decision than a language shortcoming
myringotomy@reddit
I don't see how the middleware keeps state if you are passing in a struct. The struct is not global and persistent is it?
loozer@reddit
So if you give a chain HandleFunc, to the router, if one of them is a struct, the method in the struct can alter the struct as it handles all of the incoming requests.
So it's not global to the entire program, it's held by whatever holds the chain. But the same struct is used any request the chain handles. So when you say global if you just mean that every request hits the same struct, then yeah the struct is global. But it's not like anything can access the struct, and if a different middleware chain is used on a different path you also won't get the same struct.
Note, I haven't tested any of this, though this is just what I understand from reading the article.
saynay@reddit
The http router keeps the reference to the struct, I believe.
jdehesa@reddit
In my very little experience with Go, I got the impression that it is a language that was initially designed to be simple but then a lot of little things were progressively added on top to support various features and use cases, making it not so simple anymore. I do think there are merits to the language, but there are awkward or incohesive things in it. Like, Rust, for example (which I have used very little too), is definitely a complex language, but its complexity seems somehow more justified and internally consistent.
myringotomy@reddit
Go could have been a simple language and it would have been a better language if it was simple. There are good ideas in there but seems like every good idea only got implemented about 80% and then they decided to fuck it up or just leave it undone.
Unfortunately it seems like large companies like it because you can hire a joe off of a bootcamp and have them start closing tickets in about a week.
Such a shame really.
azhder@reddit
Not always.
Success is not always given.
If you’re good, you can provide for simpler code by more complex language.
If you’re a genius, you can provide for simpler code by making a simpler language.
I’m not a genius, so I can’t provide you with an example of the last one, just know it is a possibility. Most of the time, I guess we strive for #2, and accidentally may land into the territory of #1 or more rarely #3.
dmpetersson@reddit
You are just plain wrong, uneducated and ignorant. If you don’t understand the article then perhaps you should reread it instead of complaining.
If you don’t like Go then don’t read about it.
Maybe-monad@reddit
Can you elaborate why he's wrong?
pakoito@reddit
Go is a simple language (for the lang maintainers)
myringotomy@reddit
It's a really small team so I guess that's important.
Linguistic-mystic@reddit
Maybe that’s one of the reasons Google hasn’t buried it yet, like it has so many projects. A small and low-profile language team can go a long way slipping past cost-cutting reviews.
saynay@reddit
The http router keeps the reference to the struct, from what I remember.
blobjim@reddit
Exactly how anonymous functions work in Java as well.