One of my engineering highlights was Russ reviewing a few of my contributions to Golang (to the core http library). He's a super cool and nice guy. I don't really write that much Go anymore, but it was a fun & cute language when it first came out.
I once wrote him an email asking what font was used in the plan9 papers. He replied. It's Lucida Sans Unicode. He even provided a url to paper published by the maker of the font.
Zmij and xjb are in a league of their own. Broadly speaking, dtoa first has to find the shortest decimal representation of the floating-point input, and then format that decimal representation into a string. Zmij and xjb pull far ahead of the others mostly by speeding up the second part of that process.
uscale is quite good without the stringification, as are many other algorithms. I would say uscale's main strength isn't its speed, but rather its simplicity and, more importantly, the fact that it does both formatting and parsing using a single ~11 KiB table, which no other state-of-the-art algorithm offers (although yy comes close).
I love how proactive the crypto team is about post quantum. They released https://pkg.go.dev/crypto/mldsa. The lead maintainer Filippo Valsorda wrote a nice piece here[1] to urge the tech world to start deploying good enough versions of post quantum crypto.
While I'm highly sympathetic to competing priorities crowding out movement to pq cryptography. At the same time it's not sudden at all. It's been 10 years since nist first said "move shit over"?
"bold-faced lie" and "bald-faced lie" are both valid expressions. The original expression is "bare-faced lie" but they're all pretty similar to each other.
Yes but only one of them makes most people who hear it think you don’t know the expression you’re trying to use. There’s no objective reason it has to be this way, but it is, and at least personally I appreciate being told when I’ve got something stuck to my back.
bold-faced lie is just the usual English drift that was actually questioned as incorrect when it first surfaced. If a lie is bold, you don't have to suggest that the user's face is bold when doing it. You can in thirty seconds of google searching find numerous sources explaining that "bold-faced" is a malapropism.
It's the usual English drift perhaps, but "bold faced lie" has been used since the 17th century, which is also apparent from "thirty seconds of Google searching". Three hundred years is enough usage for me to count it as correct.
On a side note, "bold faced" does not mean the persons face is bold, only that it is said boldly, which implies a level of rudeness that "bald-faced" or "bare-faced" does not.
This person was public on the recent nist list against hybrid solutions. I simply don't understand why they would oppose the safer option. Yes I've read the mailing list, it just all seems quite suspicious.
Unfortunately for people SELECTing UUIDs out of a DB directly into a uuid struct, the built-in uuid structs don't implement the necessary interface for that, so you'll have to continue using the google package, or a plain string.
The database/sql package gained native support[1] for the uuid.UUID type so it will Just Work even without the methods. This probably should have been mentioned in the release notes and database/sql package docs.
Repeating the package name is fine if it's exactly the same name (modulo capitalization) and there's nothing better to name the type anyway. The style issue would arise with e.g. uuid.UUIDVersion, which should just be named uuid.Version. There used to be a gopls lint that would flag names like uuid.UUID but it got relaxed awhile ago.
Go has had this behaviour for promoting fields (provided they don't clash) for some time, this is just extending the language feature to initialisers.
Your contrived example doesn't initialise the embedded struct that also contains a "Burrow" field. If it did that at all, even without naming the Burrow field... you would not be allowed to initialise the struct, because of the ambiguity.
The whole point is the implicit bug, when the field is added and initialisation code rewritten to take advantage of this feature, without the developer realising the clash in first place.
I'm not sure what I can say. One man's "source of bugs" is another man's "convenient syntax".
The rule errs in favour of the developer and the struct they can see. Initialising (or accessing!) a named field always picks the one in the top-level struct if you have one there. It'll be there because you added it. Promoted fields can only get promoted if they are unambiguous.
If you don't want to take advantage of that, you can write in full:
g := Gopher{
Name: "Gopher",
Burrow: "Burrow #42",
Habitat: Habitat{Burrow: "Wild Acres"},
}
fmt.Println("Your burrow: ", g.Burrow)
fmt.Println("I mean your _real_ burrow: ", g.Habitat.Burrow)
... but most Go programmers would look at the fact you named two fields the same and then nested them as an unforced error, a rookie mistake.
Most of them are very happy that they can embed some other type they don't know the full contents of, knowing they can access (and now initialise!) fields in it they care about, and thus don't give the fields in their own types the same name, while resting assured that if that other type later gains new fields they've never heard of, it's not going to clash with their own naming choices and break their code and force them to rename something. Their types' field names always come out on top, in their code.
You're doing "but what if I deliberately named my type's fields the same as the embedded type's fields?", which is like "but what if I deliberately stuck my hand in the meat grinder?" -- don't do that
I would say that initialising the wrong field because a dev is unaware of a clash between Gopher.Burrow and Gopher.Habitat.Burrow (naturally in more complex code), when upgrading to 1.27 and taking advantage of the feature without realising it, is a bug.
> First, generic methods are now supported
> Generic functions can now be used without explicit type arguments
Great! This was an ergonomic code issue I hit when trying to create a universal handler/controller generic that could hydrate/populate function arguments (from a request body) without having an actual copy of the arguments: https://github.com/xeoncross/mid/blob/main/handler.go#L12
Thanks for the link, looks like a very pleasant framework to use! I was interested to see "Mid-fasthttp" on the slower end in the benchmarks at the bottom, do you know why that is?
Btw, the Gin and Echo examples reference an "input" variable but it doesn't seem to be defined there? Maybe it was intentional, since the examples are just to give a general idea of how the handler looks in each library, but thought I would let you know just in case it wasn't.
Due to the fact that fasthttp is not net/http compatible it is due to the conversion being required from a https://pkg.go.dev/net/http#Handler. It was included for information purposes as I though someone would be curious.
I love these release notes but I really wish they would add syntax highlighting to the Go blog. I'm always a little bit surprised/disappointed whenever I land on a go.dev link since I know the code will be just a little harder to visually parse than it needs to be.
I get the why, kind of - if you need colors to make sense of code, maybe the code isn't clear enough. If you send blobs of code through email and other systems that don't necessarily have syntax highlighting, it also makes sense. But on a website, whyever not?
Personally I can't say when I was last actually aware of syntax highlighting. The only time I'm actively engaged with it is to change the default low contrast comment color that a lot of themes have (for some reason, as if comments are unimportant / noise) to something better. For Go, I don't really notice when it has or doesn't have syntax highlighting, at least not on e.g. go's website.
There's a reason for this. Rob Pike was asked about it and said that syntax highlighting reminds him of the bright colors of children's toys and he personally disables it so that he can focus on the text.
I don't know why it's still like that but that's the original reasoning.
> Syntax highlighting is juvenile. When I was a child, I was taught
arithmetic using colored rods
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuisenaire_rods). I grew up and today I
use monochromatic numerals.
> Gofmt was written to reduce the number of pointless discussions about code formatting. It succeeded admirably. I'm sad to say it had no effect whatsoever on the number of pointless discussions about syntax highlighting, or as I prefer to call it, spitzensparken blinkelichtzen.
> When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.
I sincerely hope Rob Pike was being sarcastic/ironic, because otherwise, he sounds insufferable
The reason traffic lights are colored is because they are showing distinct states of the same thing and the color is the means of differentiating.
Same for transit maps: different routes are colored to distinguish them from other routes, which is especially useful if they overlap.
But that’s not what syntax highlighting does.
The equivalent of your examples would be to not highlight the syntax at all, but only use color coding to distinguish variables.
The equivalent of how syntax highlighting currently works for your examples would be if the light fixture was one color, and the light pole was another, but then all the actual lights were the same color.
I actually think highlighting only the variables with distinct colors could be extremely valuable. Would certainly help avoid mistakes with nested i/j loop counters.
Edit to add: come to think of it, it would have been even more valuable in Go, until recently anyway. The variable color coding would expose the common loop variable instance bugs, because a programmer would be instantly puzzled by the unexpected coloring.
Your comment makes me think of LabVIEW - if you're not familiar with it, it uses a visual programming language ("G") in which data flows down wires. The color of the wire indicates the wire's data type (blue for ints, orange for floats, green for bools, pink for strings) and the width of the wire indicates the dimensionality of the data (thin line = scalar, thick line = 1D array, double-thick = 2D array). The color is more than decorative or even assistive - it's essential to understanding the program.
I still wonder why every open-source visual programming language is either a toy for teaching or straight up awful, often not implementing but even loops, when LabVIEW has been doing it right for decades.
Despite its huge size and it installing several services that constantly run in the background, it's still one of my favorite "languages" of all time. It's the only one I've ever seen people going from never having programmed before to making simple but meaningful contributions in within a single day.
That does exist, it's called semantic highlighting.
In any case, my analogy was not perfect, but neither was Russ's! The point is it's totally normal and not "childish" to use colours to help distinguish things. Traffic lights do not technically need colours (you can use the position of the lights - I assume that's what badly colourblind people do). Nor do transit maps technically need colours - you could just label the lines, or use patterns.
There are a bunch of identical things on my screen called lines. They contain a bunch of mostly identical things called tokens. Syntax highlighting uses different colors to identify the different purposes of all of these
tokens blasted onto my screen.
That makes sense as a personal preference for him, but it's odd for that to still be the company/project stance. Like, surely he knows he's the minority for not wanting highlighting?
Apart from the fact that your comment is against the rules: please don't trivialize that quote. It has a profound meaning, and is completely out of place here.
that's an extremely odd explanation and it makes me think that he has some hidden PTSD. it's also insane that one person's preference trumps the rest of the world's.
I understand and respect this position. I think syntax highlighting
is a highly subjective matter, bordering on personal preference with regard to shell interactions, editor configurations, bindings, shortcuts, snippets, and the like. It's also... insignificant somehow, like quibbles over formatting rules that Go settled once and for all with `go fmt`.
I often prefer not to enable syntax highlighting just for color. Occasionally I'd choose some minimal theme that only highlights string literals and keywords. So it has two or three colors. But some of the color schemes I see are a festival of lights where every special element of syntax has its own color.
I don't understand how that is supposed to help me parse anything and why the rules are complex. The `range` keyword needs to be purple, and `chan` must be navy blue. Why exactly? And every site has a different color scheme? There is no consensus, and there shouldn't be.
For a serious community-driven project like Go, dealing with the question of syntax highlighting is strange. The creators deliberately avoided the questions of IDEs and editors for Go, leaving them to the community. I think the same principle applies here.
> The creators deliberately avoided the questions of IDEs and editors for Go, leaving them to the community. I think the same principle applies here.
Exactly. This is fundamentally about accessibility (in the broadest sense). Do people have opinionated screenreader settings they like to force on others too?
When I started learning Go I went all in including using the recommended editor (acme editor) which has no syntax highlighting, no autocomplete and a very different way of writing code. My production went down a lot but the quality of the code went up a lot.
I think the lack of syntax highlighting was one reason for that. It makes you think more about the code you write and how it should compose, while a fully fledged IDE encourages you to just throw more code at the problem.
I think the ACME way should be used for love of code and ideally when you want to create libraries that stand the test of time.
When you just want to get things done fast bring the full IDE and now some LLM vibes and it’s done.
I go through intervals of turning autocomplete on and off. I think autocomplete is useful for boilerplate (similarly LLMs are useful for boilerplate), but I prefer not to use either when writing code where correctness is particularly important. This is because it’s easier for me to internalize what something is doing by typing it out. It’s actually more effort for me to understand code by reading it rather than writing it.
I experience something similar with system design, where the act of creating a diagram helps me to understand much faster than trying to read someone else’s diagram. It’s not because only I can create good diagrams (I cannot) but again because the act of creating one helps me internalize the design.
> Second, a key in a struct literal may now be any valid field selector for the struct type, allowing fields in nested or embedded structs to be initialized directly
It's been a while since I've written more than anything trivial in golang, but this seems like a big deal to me. As in, I can define a struct that is consistent and reusable in other structs
It will be very nice working with code generators like oapi-codegen that can generate either nested structs or very unwieldy struct names. So big in that context, but like you said just a nice qol improvement most of the time.
You might want to follow this proposal, if you aren't already. It's the most recent one, and it's supported by quite a few “core members” of the Go Team. I don't think it'll land in 1.28, but I like the fact that it's still a feature that's being actively discussed.
Having worked a couple of greenfield go shops post generics, it’s still quite rare to find them in first party code. They’re just not that useful outside of library APIs. Proper algebraic data types would be a huge game changer.
Go is extremely easy to pickup. If you know any language you probably know Go already for the most part (channels notwithstanding).
I wouldn't say it is a "beautiful" language however. Though that is in the eye of the beholder, I don't think the Go designers were even really going for beauty.
They were going for readability. You can make some impossible to read code with C++ because the programmer was too clever, and the designers of golang wanted to avoid that.
They were, very unfortunately, outsmarted by said too-clever programmers. As such I would like to request my enums and ternaries be returned to me. Trust me, they will not make a dent in the messes people have still managed to create.
This is only a small piece of the story for what people say when they want tagged unions. Without all of the ancillary support in the language, like exhaustive pattern matching, it really doesn't count.
The C++ committee said the same thing, and gave us std::variant. They are painful to work with and do not really deliver most of the benefits people want.
That is a LOT of code (very ugly code, I would add) that could be replaced by `type Float = float32 | float64` in a language with actual support for union types.
Tagged unions are not union types. A union type is a supertype for any arbitrary collection of types, but a tagged union aka sum type is a single type with multiple data constructors, and does not require subtyping to be implemented.
I still believe that SIMD support is one of the most underrated new features in Go.
It's relatively straightforward to read and to write code using Go's SIMD package (the caveat being that you have to convert your data to SoA manually), and it gives comparable performance to other languages, since there's little in the way of GC overhead, bounds checking, etc, in this case.
So SIMD not only increases performance on its own, but it also closes the performance gap between Go and C++ / Rust, which has been a major cause for rewrites in the past. The memory usage overhead due to GC doesn't go anywhere of course, so there are still performance reasons to "Rewrite in Rust", but it's now become much easier to just optimise the hell out of Go code instead.
Agreed. I've recently translated a pangram generator project written in Rust [1] leveraging SIMD to do the same in Go [2] to see how it fairs in terms of speed - the results are pretty close. In my local machine I'm getting ~3GHz in Rust vs ~2.4GHz in Go, which I think is really impressive.
I'm so glad the new uuid package landed - it's overdue but a very welcome addition! I've already replaced github.com/google/uuid with `uuid` in several projects
Used to code primarily in Java. Now my app stack is about 80% Go. I love that it enables lightweight application development. Glad to see the platform evolving with a focus on resource efficiency.
I’ve been able to run golangci-lint locally just fine.
However I’ve not had much success running it on CI, with at least the 1.27rcs. I encountered some panic deep within staticcheck, and ended up turning off that specific linter on CI (better than not running it at all).
There was a tracking issue for go1.27 support at [1].
However that is now closed, which might imply that it should be working.
I like to imagine that one day we'll have a language that launched with all the features languages eventually add. The whole ecosystem of packages would be built on them instead of a legacy of more primitive language feature sets.
I mean one thing frontier models are really good at is porting code with pretty low level of supervision. Provided there are enough fans porting packages from other ecosystems should not be a big challenge.
Generic methods are a huge win for the language. I've been waiting on these kinds of improvements to the type system before resuming work on my database toolkit.
I know this is an extremely unwelcome comment but I just have to ask… have you considered rust? Especially for a DB.
I just had excellent success migrating a go code base to rust completely AI driven. It led to a healthy performance boost too, as now I don’t need to worry about GC pressure contortions.
> Generic methods are a huge win for the language. I've been waiting on these kinds of improvements to the type system ...
It's funny that you and many others have found the introduction of "generics" in Go to be highly valuable, considering one of the motivations for Go's existence was:
Its designers were primarily motivated by their shared dislike of C++[0]
One of the language features C++ provides, "templates", was explicitly rejected by the language authors as being antithetical to Go philosophy[1]. Thompson put it bluntly:
DDJ: In the presentation before the awarding of the Japan
Prize today, you were quoted on the distinction between
reasearch and development. [The former, Thompson stated,
was directionless, whereas development had a specific goal
in mind.] So in that context, is Go experimental?
KT: Yes. When the three of us [Thompson, Rob Pike, and
Robert Griesemer] got started, it was pure research. The
three of us got together and decided that we hated C++.
[laughter] [2]
The position held for many years by the language authors was[0]:
Generics may well be added at some point. We don't feel an
urgency for them, although we understand some programmers
do.
Generics are convenient but they come at a cost in
complexity in the type system and run-time. We haven't yet
found a design that gives value proportionate to the
complexity, although we continue to think about it.
Meanwhile, Go's built-in maps and slices, plus the ability
to use the empty interface to construct containers (with
explicit unboxing) mean in many cases it is possible to
write code that does what generics would enable, if less
smoothly.
Once the community could no longer be held back, the golang FAQ presented a very different position[1]:
The Go 1.18 release added type parameters to the language.
This permits a form of polymorphic or generic programming.
The runtime also includes reflection, so preserving compatibility of the type system while adding generics was definitely a challenge, so adding generics to Go was definitely a great achievement.
Considering that Ian was already working on them before 1.0, and never stopped until a solution was found, we know for certain they were planned by at least one person on the Go team. If you are struggling to say that Go people are not a single monolith then sure. Nobody has ever thought people are a single monolith.
However, the original announcement makes the intent of the project clear: "Not yet", not "never". They were always planned to be accepted into Go. But not before an acceptable solution was found.
They have successfully been able to add major features such as generics without breaking 1.0 compatibility, and the trend is to continue than way. Well there is no major language feature in sight in fact.
Also major figures of the Go team (Russ, Ian, Rob, Ken) are gone.
Generic methods finally landing is huge. Having to write a separate typed method for every integer type was one of the most annoying boilerplate patterns in Go.
I love Go because even minor versions deliver great value like this. The struct literal inits and generic methods are great conveniences to clean up clumsy boilerplate.
Not to mention it’s just a dream language to work with , especially when building concurrent applications. I love engaging all of my cores. And memory is so expensive nowadays
Minor versions are basically major versions for Go. They’ll “never” create a Go v2 because they prioritise maintaining backwards compatibility as a language feature, thus following semver rules, no majors.
C++23 introduces std::expected, which is a simpler alternative to std::variant designed specifically for the result-or-error use case. You still don't get pattern matching, but Go-style tuples don't give you that either.
Non-cooperatively terminating a shared-memory thread is an inherently unsafe thing to do, and basically every runtime that has an API for it regards it as a design mistake. See, e.g., https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/technotes/guides/concu... and https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/processt.... (POSIX's pthread_cancel is somewhat different, and avoids some of the worst failure modes, but at the cost of not actually consistently killing the thread when you call it—and it still has a lot of problems besides that.) So I don't think Go is ever going to add this, nor should it.
(Having the go statement return a handle that you can block on would of course be completely fine, but at this point they're probably not going to do that either.)
Wasn't Go supposed to be "simple"? I remember how Go advocates used to boast about not having generics and now it almost seems like Go is trying to become some sort of C# or Java Frankenstein. I'm not even trying to badmouth Golang - just legitimately confused.
> almost seems like Go is trying to become some sort of C# or Java Frankenstein
The original Go team was trying to avoid this:
"Java, JavaScript (ECMAScript), Typescript, C#, C++, Hack (PHP), and more [...] actively borrow features from one another. They are converging into a single huge language." [0]
That team has since moved on, and now Go has begun to join that convergence.
The problem is that most programmers seem to want to write Java, more-or-less. New, simpler languages come along, but once they get popular, the pressure is on to turn them into Java-likes. It happened to Python and now it’s happening to Go. It takes a strong will for language maintainers to say “no”, and their language will suffer in popularity as a result - see, for example, Ruby.
I would argue that languages like Java (C#, Kotlin, etc.) strike a very good compromise between modeling ability and comprehension, which is why they are popular and people gravitate toward them.
You can have more complex languages like Scala that provide stronger modeling ability, but at the cost of complexity. Golang started off as extremely naive/simplistic, and is now converging in some ways. But it still has a ways to go: no generics on interfaces, no unions/ADTs, no pattern matching, no proper enums, error handling leaves much to be desired, and much more.
As I've always said: every non-functional programming language, as it matures, it's adoption rises in enterprise, eventually starts to become more and more like Java in terms of it's syntax and feature-set.
Not mentioned: Floating-point parsing and formatting now uses Russ Cox's uscale algorithm.
https://research.swtch.com/fp
https://github.com/golang/go/blob/go1.27.0/src/internal/strc...
I’m so happy Russ still contributes even though he isn’t lead anymore. I always enjoy reading his blog posts
One of my engineering highlights was Russ reviewing a few of my contributions to Golang (to the core http library). He's a super cool and nice guy. I don't really write that much Go anymore, but it was a fun & cute language when it first came out.
I once wrote him an email asking what font was used in the plan9 papers. He replied. It's Lucida Sans Unicode. He even provided a url to paper published by the maker of the font.
I seriously wonder why this isn't mentioned in release notes.
See also this recent (Aug 6th) interview of Russ Cox:
https://www.acm.org/articles/people-of-acm/2026/russ-cox
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49327408
I’d love to see how that compares to zmij: https://github.com/dtolnay/dtoa-benchmark
The upstream fmtlib dtoa-benchmark integrates uscale (https://fmtlib.github.io/dtoa-benchmark/results/). It uses C code from Russ Cox's original fpfmt repository (https://github.com/rsc/fpfmt/tree/main/bench/uscalec), which is slightly different from the Go code upthread.
Zmij and xjb are in a league of their own. Broadly speaking, dtoa first has to find the shortest decimal representation of the floating-point input, and then format that decimal representation into a string. Zmij and xjb pull far ahead of the others mostly by speeding up the second part of that process.
uscale is quite good without the stringification, as are many other algorithms. I would say uscale's main strength isn't its speed, but rather its simplicity and, more importantly, the fact that it does both formatting and parsing using a single ~11 KiB table, which no other state-of-the-art algorithm offers (although yy comes close).
I love how proactive the crypto team is about post quantum. They released https://pkg.go.dev/crypto/mldsa. The lead maintainer Filippo Valsorda wrote a nice piece here[1] to urge the tech world to start deploying good enough versions of post quantum crypto.
[1] https://words.filippo.io/crqc-timeline/
While I'm highly sympathetic to competing priorities crowding out movement to pq cryptography. At the same time it's not sudden at all. It's been 10 years since nist first said "move shit over"?
Yes, and at that time the answer was "move over where?" now it's 2026 and x-wing is a draft still
Ah. This is a bold faced lie. There were plenty of options in 2016. Nist released final candidates in 2024 and published the candidates this year.
ssh (as noted in tfa) has had pq defaults since 2022.
In case you wanted to know, the expression is actually "bald-faced lie", i.e. unmasked, shameless.
"bold-faced lie" and "bald-faced lie" are both valid expressions. The original expression is "bare-faced lie" but they're all pretty similar to each other.
Yes but only one of them makes most people who hear it think you don’t know the expression you’re trying to use. There’s no objective reason it has to be this way, but it is, and at least personally I appreciate being told when I’ve got something stuck to my back.
bold-faced lie is just the usual English drift that was actually questioned as incorrect when it first surfaced. If a lie is bold, you don't have to suggest that the user's face is bold when doing it. You can in thirty seconds of google searching find numerous sources explaining that "bold-faced" is a malapropism.
It's the usual English drift perhaps, but "bold faced lie" has been used since the 17th century, which is also apparent from "thirty seconds of Google searching". Three hundred years is enough usage for me to count it as correct.
On a side note, "bold faced" does not mean the persons face is bold, only that it is said boldly, which implies a level of rudeness that "bald-faced" or "bare-faced" does not.
Colloquialisms and slang have unstable meaning over history, location, and cultures.
Generally, something to be avoided by people striving for clearer communication. =3
no
see also https://www.reddit.com/r/BoneAppleTea/
They are also lying, it is an Italics-Faced lie... thank you, I will see myself out. =3
Calling it a lie is pretty heavy.
Yeah the deadline to move everything is drawing near I am actually not impressed by how fast things are going but all progress is good.
its ok we are still rawdogging ftp every day in the business world. The fax machines of the future truly
The .NET team have been similarly busy on post-quantum lately, it completely dominated the .NET API reviews for the dotnet 11 release.
It seems there's a big push happening behind the scenes.
And Java implementations as well.
US Government is starting to push hard so code first needs to support it.
Ok, but when is it coming to our web browsers and email clients?
I don't know about mail clients, but it's in most web browsers already.
Then I'm wondering why they don't simply use the same crypto libraries as the web browsers.
Go features cleaner crypto APIs (than OpenSSL for example) with less footguns.
Preventing CGO overhead maybe?
It’s been on by default for 2 years in Chrome.
This person was public on the recent nist list against hybrid solutions. I simply don't understand why they would oppose the safer option. Yes I've read the mailing list, it just all seems quite suspicious.
Brace for a wave of drive-by pull-requests swapping google/uuid [1] out for the now-standard uuid package [2].
Kubernetes project will be the first one [3] I guarantee it.
[1] https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/google/uuid
[2] https://go.dev/pkg/uuid
[3] https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/2220c3853a2402...
[4] https://github.com/google/uuid/issues/221
Unfortunately for people SELECTing UUIDs out of a DB directly into a uuid struct, the built-in uuid structs don't implement the necessary interface for that, so you'll have to continue using the google package, or a plain string.
The database/sql package gained native support[1] for the uuid.UUID type so it will Just Work even without the methods. This probably should have been mentioned in the release notes and database/sql package docs.
[1] https://cs.opensource.google/go/go/+/refs/tags/go1.27.0:src/...
Doesn’t the type name uuid.UUID violate go’s style guide for type naming? I seem to recall a fairly specific prohibition on stutter-types.
Repeating the package name is fine if it's exactly the same name (modulo capitalization) and there's nothing better to name the type anyway. The style issue would arise with e.g. uuid.UUIDVersion, which should just be named uuid.Version. There used to be a gopls lint that would flag names like uuid.UUID but it got relaxed awhile ago.
No. What else could it reasonably be named? Hard to imagine.
The rule has always been intended to cover types that have another word in them but still choose to pointlessly repeat the package name.
`uuid.UUIDGenerator` is a hypothetical example of the anti-pattern that would instead be better named as `uuid.Generator`.
> No. What else could it reasonably be named? Hard to imagine.
Ocaml often just has it be T
so uuid.T
uuid.Entifier
Yeah, I would have gone with uuid.V4 or something. But oh well, as long as it works. :D
V4 or V7 are just how you initialize them (constructor), but then this the same representation, so they don't need specific types.
Or just a number (128-bit).
Oooof… well played go team, well played.
will 'go fix' take care of this?
Struct literal changes while welcomed, have the issue of being a possible source of bugs, if there are overlapping fields,
type Habitat struct { Burrow string }
type Gopher struct { Name string Burrow string Habitat }
It will not initialise what one expects, here it is a contrived example, however it may not be easy to spot in more complex source code.
https://go.dev/play/p/dsY6tK5S8Ie
Better generics and improved SIMD are nice additions as well.
Go has had this behaviour for promoting fields (provided they don't clash) for some time, this is just extending the language feature to initialisers.
Your contrived example doesn't initialise the embedded struct that also contains a "Burrow" field. If it did that at all, even without naming the Burrow field... you would not be allowed to initialise the struct, because of the ambiguity.
https://go.dev/ref/spec#Composite_literals
> A key must not denote a promoted field inside an embedded struct if that struct is also specified by another key.
> Given the declarations
> .... field selectors may not denote overlapping fields:Which error?
https://go.dev/play/p/CFWVXkFBOEX
Note that I added a name field to Line.
Oops now Object.name is empty, which is my point.Yeah, but that isn't what I am talking about.
The whole point is the implicit bug, when the field is added and initialisation code rewritten to take advantage of this feature, without the developer realising the clash in first place.
I'm not sure what I can say. One man's "source of bugs" is another man's "convenient syntax".
The rule errs in favour of the developer and the struct they can see. Initialising (or accessing!) a named field always picks the one in the top-level struct if you have one there. It'll be there because you added it. Promoted fields can only get promoted if they are unambiguous.
If you don't want to take advantage of that, you can write in full:
... but most Go programmers would look at the fact you named two fields the same and then nested them as an unforced error, a rookie mistake.Most of them are very happy that they can embed some other type they don't know the full contents of, knowing they can access (and now initialise!) fields in it they care about, and thus don't give the fields in their own types the same name, while resting assured that if that other type later gains new fields they've never heard of, it's not going to clash with their own naming choices and break their code and force them to rename something. Their types' field names always come out on top, in their code.
You're doing "but what if I deliberately named my type's fields the same as the embedded type's fields?", which is like "but what if I deliberately stuck my hand in the meat grinder?" -- don't do that
I'd say it is as expected https://go.dev/play/p/sy6SMrOiw4y
I would at least expect a go vet warning in such cases.
Mhm, probably worth a golang-ci check for duplicate field names which are accessed by methods on the embedded type.
Better would be a got vet check.
I understand the need not to break existing code that might have such fields.
I think that's a no-go because vet checks have no-false-positive policy. Ie, when go vet flags something, its a bug.
I would say that initialising the wrong field because a dev is unaware of a clash between Gopher.Burrow and Gopher.Habitat.Burrow (naturally in more complex code), when upgrading to 1.27 and taking advantage of the feature without realising it, is a bug.
> First, generic methods are now supported > Generic functions can now be used without explicit type arguments
Great! This was an ergonomic code issue I hit when trying to create a universal handler/controller generic that could hydrate/populate function arguments (from a request body) without having an actual copy of the arguments: https://github.com/xeoncross/mid/blob/main/handler.go#L12
Can proper Result/Option types be created for Go now?
You can do pipelined option/result manipulation now, but without sum types/pattern matching it's not going to be quite as useful as Rust's.
Neat, stealing this.
I wrote a blog on it if you're interested: https://xeoncross.com/2026/better_go_handlers.html
Thanks for the link, looks like a very pleasant framework to use! I was interested to see "Mid-fasthttp" on the slower end in the benchmarks at the bottom, do you know why that is?
Btw, the Gin and Echo examples reference an "input" variable but it doesn't seem to be defined there? Maybe it was intentional, since the examples are just to give a general idea of how the handler looks in each library, but thought I would let you know just in case it wasn't.
Due to the fact that fasthttp is not net/http compatible it is due to the conversion being required from a https://pkg.go.dev/net/http#Handler. It was included for information purposes as I though someone would be curious.
I love these release notes but I really wish they would add syntax highlighting to the Go blog. I'm always a little bit surprised/disappointed whenever I land on a go.dev link since I know the code will be just a little harder to visually parse than it needs to be.
I get the why, kind of - if you need colors to make sense of code, maybe the code isn't clear enough. If you send blobs of code through email and other systems that don't necessarily have syntax highlighting, it also makes sense. But on a website, whyever not?
Personally I can't say when I was last actually aware of syntax highlighting. The only time I'm actively engaged with it is to change the default low contrast comment color that a lot of themes have (for some reason, as if comments are unimportant / noise) to something better. For Go, I don't really notice when it has or doesn't have syntax highlighting, at least not on e.g. go's website.
There's a reason for this. Rob Pike was asked about it and said that syntax highlighting reminds him of the bright colors of children's toys and he personally disables it so that he can focus on the text.
I don't know why it's still like that but that's the original reasoning.
> Syntax highlighting is juvenile. When I was a child, I was taught arithmetic using colored rods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuisenaire_rods). I grew up and today I use monochromatic numerals.
https://groups.google.com/g/golang-nuts/c/hJHCAaiL0so/m/kG3B...
Wow, that thread is a piece of work
> Gofmt was written to reduce the number of pointless discussions about code formatting. It succeeded admirably. I'm sad to say it had no effect whatsoever on the number of pointless discussions about syntax highlighting, or as I prefer to call it, spitzensparken blinkelichtzen.
> When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.
I sincerely hope Rob Pike was being sarcastic/ironic, because otherwise, he sounds insufferable
> because otherwise, he sounds insufferable
Oh come on, I like syntax highlights, but this is not "insufferable". It's just opinions expressed strongly, with probably some tounge-in-cheek
he is insufferable. it's his thing lol.
That must be why traffic lights and electrical wires and transit maps are all black and white...
That’s an interesting point.
The reason traffic lights are colored is because they are showing distinct states of the same thing and the color is the means of differentiating.
Same for transit maps: different routes are colored to distinguish them from other routes, which is especially useful if they overlap.
But that’s not what syntax highlighting does.
The equivalent of your examples would be to not highlight the syntax at all, but only use color coding to distinguish variables.
The equivalent of how syntax highlighting currently works for your examples would be if the light fixture was one color, and the light pole was another, but then all the actual lights were the same color.
I actually think highlighting only the variables with distinct colors could be extremely valuable. Would certainly help avoid mistakes with nested i/j loop counters.
Edit to add: come to think of it, it would have been even more valuable in Go, until recently anyway. The variable color coding would expose the common loop variable instance bugs, because a programmer would be instantly puzzled by the unexpected coloring.
Your comment makes me think of LabVIEW - if you're not familiar with it, it uses a visual programming language ("G") in which data flows down wires. The color of the wire indicates the wire's data type (blue for ints, orange for floats, green for bools, pink for strings) and the width of the wire indicates the dimensionality of the data (thin line = scalar, thick line = 1D array, double-thick = 2D array). The color is more than decorative or even assistive - it's essential to understanding the program.
I still wonder why every open-source visual programming language is either a toy for teaching or straight up awful, often not implementing but even loops, when LabVIEW has been doing it right for decades.
Despite its huge size and it installing several services that constantly run in the background, it's still one of my favorite "languages" of all time. It's the only one I've ever seen people going from never having programmed before to making simple but meaningful contributions in within a single day.
> The reason traffic lights are colored is because they are showing distinct states of the same thing and the color is the means of differentiating
I wonder if traffic lights were invented today, would it be just one light changing colour?
That does exist, it's called semantic highlighting.
In any case, my analogy was not perfect, but neither was Russ's! The point is it's totally normal and not "childish" to use colours to help distinguish things. Traffic lights do not technically need colours (you can use the position of the lights - I assume that's what badly colourblind people do). Nor do transit maps technically need colours - you could just label the lines, or use patterns.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/gywst/1407078279
It's completely absurd to say that colours are childish because they can help children.
There are a bunch of identical things on my screen called lines. They contain a bunch of mostly identical things called tokens. Syntax highlighting uses different colors to identify the different purposes of all of these tokens blasted onto my screen.
I want to downvote this for being one of the stupidest things I've read this week but you're just quoting it so I guess I'll just seethe silently.
never discount the possibility of so called brilliant people having dumb AF takes.
What is childish is holding up one guy's editor preferences as a religious sacrament when 99.9% of your readers have different preferences.
Well, there's kind of a precedent at least...
> Gofmt's style is no one's favorite, yet gofmt is everyone's favorite.
That's been a major success
That makes sense as a personal preference for him, but it's odd for that to still be the company/project stance. Like, surely he knows he's the minority for not wanting highlighting?
Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia.
Apart from the fact that your comment is against the rules: please don't trivialize that quote. It has a profound meaning, and is completely out of place here.
that's an extremely odd explanation and it makes me think that he has some hidden PTSD. it's also insane that one person's preference trumps the rest of the world's.
He also doesn't capitalize his sentences.
I like to alternate. or use constructions that make it ambiguous.
Maybe he was talking in private.
Welcome to Go as a project.
Born out of C++ trauma apparently, for context
Child hood trauma led to if err != nil and now the rest of us get to share that trauma? Makes slight sense I guess.
I understand and respect this position. I think syntax highlighting is a highly subjective matter, bordering on personal preference with regard to shell interactions, editor configurations, bindings, shortcuts, snippets, and the like. It's also... insignificant somehow, like quibbles over formatting rules that Go settled once and for all with `go fmt`.
I often prefer not to enable syntax highlighting just for color. Occasionally I'd choose some minimal theme that only highlights string literals and keywords. So it has two or three colors. But some of the color schemes I see are a festival of lights where every special element of syntax has its own color. I don't understand how that is supposed to help me parse anything and why the rules are complex. The `range` keyword needs to be purple, and `chan` must be navy blue. Why exactly? And every site has a different color scheme? There is no consensus, and there shouldn't be.
For a serious community-driven project like Go, dealing with the question of syntax highlighting is strange. The creators deliberately avoided the questions of IDEs and editors for Go, leaving them to the community. I think the same principle applies here.
> The creators deliberately avoided the questions of IDEs and editors for Go, leaving them to the community. I think the same principle applies here.
Exactly. This is fundamentally about accessibility (in the broadest sense). Do people have opinionated screenreader settings they like to force on others too?
The Go official web site doesn't even use the Go fonts: https://go.dev/blog/go-fonts
I wonder if the Go fonts has been created just to get a trademark on the "Go" word...
When I started learning Go I went all in including using the recommended editor (acme editor) which has no syntax highlighting, no autocomplete and a very different way of writing code. My production went down a lot but the quality of the code went up a lot.
I think the lack of syntax highlighting was one reason for that. It makes you think more about the code you write and how it should compose, while a fully fledged IDE encourages you to just throw more code at the problem.
I think the ACME way should be used for love of code and ideally when you want to create libraries that stand the test of time. When you just want to get things done fast bring the full IDE and now some LLM vibes and it’s done.
Are you using the Go fonts?
https://go.dev/blog/go-fonts
I go through intervals of turning autocomplete on and off. I think autocomplete is useful for boilerplate (similarly LLMs are useful for boilerplate), but I prefer not to use either when writing code where correctness is particularly important. This is because it’s easier for me to internalize what something is doing by typing it out. It’s actually more effort for me to understand code by reading it rather than writing it.
I experience something similar with system design, where the act of creating a diagram helps me to understand much faster than trying to read someone else’s diagram. It’s not because only I can create good diagrams (I cannot) but again because the act of creating one helps me internalize the design.
I just have a tampermonkey profile for go.dev to fix that for me.
> Second, a key in a struct literal may now be any valid field selector for the struct type, allowing fields in nested or embedded structs to be initialized directly
It's been a while since I've written more than anything trivial in golang, but this seems like a big deal to me. As in, I can define a struct that is consistent and reusable in other structs
This will shorten many test files!
This is quite a QoL issue, but is it big? Nothing changes from functional point of view.
It will be very nice working with code generators like oapi-codegen that can generate either nested structs or very unwieldy struct names. So big in that context, but like you said just a nice qol improvement most of the time.
This makes me want to find a side project for an excuse to give Go another try (I last used it professionally pre-generics).
I do still wish it had discriminated unions (algebraic data types) and some better error handling ergonomics.
Re unions:
https://github.com/golang/go/issues/76920
You might want to follow this proposal, if you aren't already. It's the most recent one, and it's supported by quite a few “core members” of the Go Team. I don't think it'll land in 1.28, but I like the fact that it's still a feature that's being actively discussed.
Having worked a couple of greenfield go shops post generics, it’s still quite rare to find them in first party code. They’re just not that useful outside of library APIs. Proper algebraic data types would be a huge game changer.
Do it. It is just a beautiful language to write and much simpler to pickup than many others. I am a fan boy of course but I love Go.
Go is extremely easy to pickup. If you know any language you probably know Go already for the most part (channels notwithstanding).
I wouldn't say it is a "beautiful" language however. Though that is in the eye of the beholder, I don't think the Go designers were even really going for beauty.
They were going for readability. You can make some impossible to read code with C++ because the programmer was too clever, and the designers of golang wanted to avoid that.
They were, very unfortunately, outsmarted by said too-clever programmers. As such I would like to request my enums and ternaries be returned to me. Trust me, they will not make a dent in the messes people have still managed to create.
Tagged unions can be implemented in user code, you dont actually need language support to use them.
https://github.com/splizard/tagged
This is only a small piece of the story for what people say when they want tagged unions. Without all of the ancillary support in the language, like exhaustive pattern matching, it really doesn't count.
You can also add support for exhaustive switches on tags.
Just as a linter config though?
The C++ committee said the same thing, and gave us std::variant. They are painful to work with and do not really deliver most of the benefits people want.
That is a LOT of code (very ugly code, I would add) that could be replaced by `type Float = float32 | float64` in a language with actual support for union types.
Tagged unions are not union types. A union type is a supertype for any arbitrary collection of types, but a tagged union aka sum type is a single type with multiple data constructors, and does not require subtyping to be implemented.
The SIMD stuff is incredible. I have been having lots of fun with it. You can use LLMs as a scalar to SIMD transpiler, it works amazingly well.
Sure a SIMD expert writing assembly can probably do a better job than an LLM using these new intrinsics, but it’s still massively faster.
I still believe that SIMD support is one of the most underrated new features in Go.
It's relatively straightforward to read and to write code using Go's SIMD package (the caveat being that you have to convert your data to SoA manually), and it gives comparable performance to other languages, since there's little in the way of GC overhead, bounds checking, etc, in this case.
So SIMD not only increases performance on its own, but it also closes the performance gap between Go and C++ / Rust, which has been a major cause for rewrites in the past. The memory usage overhead due to GC doesn't go anywhere of course, so there are still performance reasons to "Rewrite in Rust", but it's now become much easier to just optimise the hell out of Go code instead.
Are rewrites from Go to Rust for performance reasons really that common?
Agreed. I've recently translated a pangram generator project written in Rust [1] leveraging SIMD to do the same in Go [2] to see how it fairs in terms of speed - the results are pretty close. In my local machine I'm getting ~3GHz in Rust vs ~2.4GHz in Go, which I think is really impressive.
[1]: https://github.com/tuzz/pangram-machine
[2]: https://github.com/nkanaev/pangram-machine-go
“Do a breakthrough and make this SIMD fastest”
I'm so glad the new uuid package landed - it's overdue but a very welcome addition! I've already replaced github.com/google/uuid with `uuid` in several projects
Used to code primarily in Java. Now my app stack is about 80% Go. I love that it enables lightweight application development. Glad to see the platform evolving with a focus on resource efficiency.
Every release CPU load becomes a bit lower. Love it :)
Keeping priorities right!
Full release notes: https://go.dev/doc/go1.27
FYI golangci-lint and gopls are both broken if you try using generic methods.
I’ve been able to run golangci-lint locally just fine.
However I’ve not had much success running it on CI, with at least the 1.27rcs. I encountered some panic deep within staticcheck, and ended up turning off that specific linter on CI (better than not running it at all).
There was a tracking issue for go1.27 support at [1]. However that is now closed, which might imply that it should be working.
[1] https://github.com/golangci/golangci-lint/issues/6643
Broken how? Please report an issue. The latest gopls should support generic methods.
Ah my bad gopls is fine; I forgot to run
after upgrading Go itself.Thank you for the headsup!
New JSON is amazing, and SIMD will be big for json, audio/video etc.
Interesting, this reduced memory usage in my test down from 14 MB to 12 MB, and Bun (Rust) is still at 7.2 MB, down from 10 MB with Bun (Zig).
Nice additions to go.
I like to imagine that one day we'll have a language that launched with all the features languages eventually add. The whole ecosystem of packages would be built on them instead of a legacy of more primitive language feature sets.
I don’t think launching Go today would have been better than 15 years ago.
Standard ML is a perfect programming language from the 90s. It unfortunately does not have a great eco system of packages.
I mean one thing frontier models are really good at is porting code with pretty low level of supervision. Provided there are enough fans porting packages from other ecosystems should not be a big challenge.
Obligatory XKCD reference:
https://xkcd.com/927/
Generic methods are a huge win for the language. I've been waiting on these kinds of improvements to the type system before resuming work on my database toolkit.
I know this is an extremely unwelcome comment but I just have to ask… have you considered rust? Especially for a DB.
I just had excellent success migrating a go code base to rust completely AI driven. It led to a healthy performance boost too, as now I don’t need to worry about GC pressure contortions.
> Generic methods are a huge win for the language. I've been waiting on these kinds of improvements to the type system ...
It's funny that you and many others have found the introduction of "generics" in Go to be highly valuable, considering one of the motivations for Go's existence was:
One of the language features C++ provides, "templates", was explicitly rejected by the language authors as being antithetical to Go philosophy[1]. Thompson put it bluntly: And now, years later, generics are "a huge win."0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(programming_language)#Hist...
1 - https://commandcenter.blogspot.com/2012/06/less-is-exponenti...
2 - https://web.archive.org/web/20110521080746/http://drdobbs.co...
Generics were always planned, of course: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKnDgT73v8s&t=3267s
Rejecting templates does not mean rejecting generics.
> Generics were always planned, of course ...
This is provably incorrect.
The position held for many years by the language authors was[0]:
Once the community could no longer be held back, the golang FAQ presented a very different position[1]: 0 - https://web.archive.org/web/20170102202940/http://golang.org...1 - https://go.dev/doc/faq#generics
> Generics are convenient but they come at a cost in complexity in the type system and run-time.
By run-time they mean compile-time? There shouldn't be a run-time penalty right?
Also, is there some measure of the additional compilation cost now that generics has been added?
The “runtime” as in the compiler runtime which provides the scheduler, garbage collector, etc.
The runtime also includes reflection, so preserving compatibility of the type system while adding generics was definitely a challenge, so adding generics to Go was definitely a great achievement.
Considering that Ian was already working on them before 1.0, and never stopped until a solution was found, we know for certain they were planned by at least one person on the Go team. If you are struggling to say that Go people are not a single monolith then sure. Nobody has ever thought people are a single monolith.
However, the original announcement makes the intent of the project clear: "Not yet", not "never". They were always planned to be accepted into Go. But not before an acceptable solution was found.
Do we know if Go team is working in 2.0 release?
We know they aren't.
They have successfully been able to add major features such as generics without breaking 1.0 compatibility, and the trend is to continue than way. Well there is no major language feature in sight in fact.
Also major figures of the Go team (Russ, Ian, Rob, Ken) are gone.
I have been waiting for generic methods and can't wait to use them!
The `go fix` modernisers are also great, have already run them in several repos.
I have recently been spending time learning go, really really liking the language, awesome standard lib, excellent tooling and great experience.
It sounds like the dumbest thing in the world, but I love the import system auto-adding stuff inside of vscode when I need it. just slick.
I think the fact that package names are URLs is simultaneously genuis and horrifying.
Generic methods finally landing is huge. Having to write a separate typed method for every integer type was one of the most annoying boilerplate patterns in Go.
I love Go because even minor versions deliver great value like this. The struct literal inits and generic methods are great conveniences to clean up clumsy boilerplate.
Not to mention it’s just a dream language to work with , especially when building concurrent applications. I love engaging all of my cores. And memory is so expensive nowadays
Minor versions are basically major versions for Go. They’ll “never” create a Go v2 because they prioritise maintaining backwards compatibility as a language feature, thus following semver rules, no majors.
true that, but we get a couple of these a year it seems, so their overall velocity is excellent, and without breaking anything. a dream language.
I really want to like Go, but I can't stand looking at Go code. The error handling is such a turn off.
Why would you say something so controversial yet so brave?
Not that I like go at all but because of it my C++ is starting to look like it as I am returning tuples of [result, error].
I try to avoid exceptions, is there any better ways? (Variant looks a bit more complicated but could be a totally OK alternative)
C++23 introduces std::expected, which is a simpler alternative to std::variant designed specifically for the result-or-error use case. You still don't get pattern matching, but Go-style tuples don't give you that either.
its simple and it works
Personally I feel go has many issues and is ugly as hell but the error handling is really the least of my worries.
Go - the language no one likes, but frankly everyone needs.
I love Go and would not enjoy working with any other language as much
Python is already the language everyone needs.
does it have goroutine termination, i recently found out you need a runtime patch for it
The rule is to start a goroutine only if you know how it will end.
A goroutine that has to be killed (no other way to tell it to stop) is a bug.
What exactly do you mean by "goroutine termination"?
I suppose: a "go" returns an id, and then you call kill(id) to terminate it, as if it were a pthread or a process. In which case the answer is: no.
Non-cooperatively terminating a shared-memory thread is an inherently unsafe thing to do, and basically every runtime that has an API for it regards it as a design mistake. See, e.g., https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/technotes/guides/concu... and https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/processt.... (POSIX's pthread_cancel is somewhat different, and avoids some of the worst failure modes, but at the cost of not actually consistently killing the thread when you call it—and it still has a lot of problems besides that.) So I don't think Go is ever going to add this, nor should it.
(Having the go statement return a handle that you can block on would of course be completely fine, but at this point they're probably not going to do that either.)
Quarterly reminder that Go still exists.
The release cycle is semi-annually.
I can imagine using it for simple web stuff. E.g. its perfect for something like Forgejo. But yeah... Seems like the world has moved on mostly.
A large portion of the DevOps/Platform Engineering world uses Go.
Wait generics? What changed? Why is golang accepting of generics now?
They landed half a decade ago...
There are some details here about the history of how generics finally came to Go: https://golang.design/under-the-hood/en/part2lang/ch08generi...
The tl;dr boils down to a combination of valuing both compilation speed and execution speed.
I'm always amazed on how the Go team has bo faith in syntax highlighting.
Wasn't Go supposed to be "simple"? I remember how Go advocates used to boast about not having generics and now it almost seems like Go is trying to become some sort of C# or Java Frankenstein. I'm not even trying to badmouth Golang - just legitimately confused.
> almost seems like Go is trying to become some sort of C# or Java Frankenstein
The original Go team was trying to avoid this:
"Java, JavaScript (ECMAScript), Typescript, C#, C++, Hack (PHP), and more [...] actively borrow features from one another. They are converging into a single huge language." [0]
That team has since moved on, and now Go has begun to join that convergence.
The problem is that most programmers seem to want to write Java, more-or-less. New, simpler languages come along, but once they get popular, the pressure is on to turn them into Java-likes. It happened to Python and now it’s happening to Go. It takes a strong will for language maintainers to say “no”, and their language will suffer in popularity as a result - see, for example, Ruby.
[0] https://go.dev/talks/2015/simplicity-is-complicated.slide#5
I would argue that languages like Java (C#, Kotlin, etc.) strike a very good compromise between modeling ability and comprehension, which is why they are popular and people gravitate toward them.
You can have more complex languages like Scala that provide stronger modeling ability, but at the cost of complexity. Golang started off as extremely naive/simplistic, and is now converging in some ways. But it still has a ways to go: no generics on interfaces, no unions/ADTs, no pattern matching, no proper enums, error handling leaves much to be desired, and much more.
I'm pretty sure there is a silent majority of Go users who don't want/need/know about generics.
And they can simply not use them ?
Indeed ! So I don't see what the problem is here...
A problem was so many others were screaming about the lack of generics, as though there were not other language options that provided them.
Go genetics are still incredibly simple compared to languages with a rich type system.
As I've always said: every non-functional programming language, as it matures, it's adoption rises in enterprise, eventually starts to become more and more like Java in terms of it's syntax and feature-set.
because functional languages already have those features?
naah.. they are just too different syntactically.. and the way programmers use them..