this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2023
1371 points (97.9% liked)

Programmer Humor

20039 readers
789 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 74 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Sometimes I think Go was specifically made for Google to dictate its own preferences on the rest of us like some kind of power play. It enforces one single style of programming too much.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Is this a hard error? Like it doesn't compile at all?

Isn't there something like #[allow(unused)] in Rust you can put over the declaration?

[–] flame3244 27 points 2 years ago (3 children)

Yes it is a hard error and Go does not compile then. You can do _ = foobar to fake variable usage. I think this is okay for testing purposes.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I think that's even worse because it increases the likelihood you'll forget you faked that variable just for testing

[–] flame3244 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Worse than not having a unused variable check at all? Dunno, the underscore assignment are very visible for me and stand out on every code read and review.

[–] AeonFelis 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

Yes, worse, because now if you want to use the underscore assignment to indicate that you really want to discard that variable - it gets confused with underscore assignments that were put there "temporarily" for experimentation purpose.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago

Exactly.

Say I'm having some issue with a function. I comment out half the function to see if that's where the weirdness is. Golang says "unused variable, I refuse to compile this dogshit!" I completely fool Golang by just using _ = foo. Yes, I was correct, that's where the problem was. I rewrite that section of the code, and test it out, things work perfectly. Only now, it turns out I'm not using foo anymore, and Golang has no idea because I so cleverly fooled it with _ = foo.

Now, something that could be caught by a linter and expressed as a warning is missed by the language police entirely, and may make it into production code.

Police the code that people put into a repository / share with others. Don't police the code that people just want to test on their own.

[–] nomadjoanne 7 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Ew, that's awful. Go is not one of my programming languages but I had always held it in high esteem because Ken Thompson and Rob Pike were involved in it.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago

That's the main reason it has had any success. It's not that it's a good language, it's just that it has good references.

[–] flame3244 1 points 2 years ago

Honestly, it does not happen often that I have a ln unused variable that I want to keep. In my mind it is the same thing when wanting to call a function that does not exists. Also my editor is highlighting error Long before I try to compile, so this is fine too for me.

[–] AstridWipenaugh 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

The underscore is used in production code too. It's a legitimate way to tell the compiler to discard the object because you don't intend to use the pointer/value.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Never really coded in Go outside of trying it out, but as far as I know it's a hard error.

[–] flame3244 8 points 2 years ago

I think this is a good thing. The styles are just opinions anyway and forcing everyone to just follow a single style takes a lot of bikeshedding away, which I really like.