• arc ( arc@lemm.ee ) 
      13·
      3 years ago

      Swift and Rust have a far more elegant solution. Swift has a pseudo throw / try-catch, while Rust has a Result<> and if you want to throw it up the chain you can use a ? notation instead of cluttering the code with error checking.

      • barsoap ( barsoap@lemm.ee ) 
        4·
        3 years ago

        The exception handling question mark, spelled ? and abbreviated and pronounced eh?, is a half-arsed copy of monadic error handling. Rust devs really wanted the syntax without introducing HKTs, and admittedly you can’t do foo()?.bar()?.baz()? in Haskell so it’s only theoretical purity which is half-arsed, not ergonomics.

        • m_f ( m_f@midwest.social ) 
          1·
          3 years ago

          It’s not a half-arsed copy, it’s borrowing a limited subset of HKT for a language with very different goals. Haskell can afford a lot of luxuries that Rust can’t.

          • barsoap ( barsoap@lemm.ee ) 
            1·
            3 years ago

            It’s a specialised syntax transformation that has nothing to do with HKTs, or the type system in general. Also HKTs aren’t off the table it’s just that their theory isn’t exactly trivial in face of the rest of Rust’s type system but we already have GATs.

            It actually wouldn’t be hard writing a macro implementing do-notation that desugars to and_then calls on a particular type to get some kind of generic code (though of course monomorphised), but of course that would be circumventing the type system.

            Anyhow my point stands that how Rust currently does it is imitating all that Haskell goodness on a practical everyday coding level but without having (yet) to solve the hard problem of how to do it without special-cased syntax sugar. With proper monads we e.g. wouldn’t need to have separate syntax for async and ?

        • arc ( arc@lemm.ee ) 
          1·
          3 years ago

          You can say it’s half-arsed if you like, but it’s still vastly more convenient to write than if err != nil all over the place

  • CodeBlooded ( CodeBlooded@programming.dev ) 
    63·
    3 years ago

    If this language feature is annoying to you, you are the problem. You 👏are 👏 the 👏 reason 👏 it 👏 exists.

    I worked in places where the developers loaded their code full of unused variables and dead code. It costs a lot of time reasoning about it during pull request and it costs a lot of time arguing with coworkers who swear that they’re going to need that code in there next week (they never need that code).

    This is a very attractive feature for a programming language in my opinion.

    PS: I’m still denying your pull request if you try to comment the code instead.

    ❗️EDIT: A lot of y’all have never been to programming hell and it shows. 🪖 I’m telling you, I’ve fixed bayonets in the trenches of dynamically typed Python, I’ve braved the rice paddies of CICD YAML mines, I’ve queried alongside SQL Team Six; I’ve seen things in production, things you’ll probably never see… things you should never see. It’s easy to be against an opinionated compiler having such a feature, but when you watch a prod deployment blow up on a Friday afternoon without an easy option to rollback AND hours later you find the bug after you were stalled by dead code, it changes you. Then… then you start to appreciate opinionated features like this one. 🫡

    • m_f ( m_f@midwest.social ) 
      50·
      3 years ago

      That’s 👏 what 👏 CI 👏 is 👏 for

      Warn in dev, enforce stuff like this in CI and block PRs that don’t pass. Go is just being silly here, which is not surprising given that Rob Pike said

      Syntax highlighting is juvenile. When I was a child, I was taught arithmetic using colored rods. I grew up and today I use monochromatic numerals.

      The Go developers need to get over themselves.

      • FlumPHP ( flumph@programming.dev ) 
        4·
        3 years ago

        What’s a situation where you need an unused variable? I’m onboard with go and goland being a bit aggressive with this type of thing, but I can’t think of the case where I need to be able to commit an unused variable.

        • m_f ( m_f@midwest.social ) 
          13·
          3 years ago

          You probably wouldn’t be committing this, unless you’re backing up a heavily WIP branch. The issue is that if you’re developing locally and need to make a temporary change, you might comment something out, which then requires commenting another now-unused variable, which then requires commenting out yet another variable, and so on. Go isn’t helping you here, it’s wasting your time for no good reason. Just emit a warning and allow CI to be configured to reject warnings.

      • spookedbyroaches ( spookedbyroaches@lemm.ee ) 
        2·
        3 years ago

        I agree that golang is being dumb when you don’t even have the option to tell it that this is a testing env or something. But the thing about syntax highlighting is not the same. One is about handholding the developer so much that it makes it even more difficult to develop, and the other is a completely optional feature that is so uselful and non intrusive that even wizardly editors like emacs use it.

    • Urik ( Urik@lemmy.ca ) 
      28·
      3 years ago

      That’s a problem with your workplace, not the language nor OP.
      You could have a build setting for personal development where unused variables are not checked, and then a build setting for your CI system that will look for them. It gives you freedom to develop the way you want without being annoyed when you remove something just to test something, but will not merge your PR unless the stricter rules are met.

      • CodeBlooded ( CodeBlooded@programming.dev ) 
        3·
        3 years ago

        I concur, it is a problem with that workplace. (In this case, OP is just sharing a funny meme. I wouldn’t suggest this meme means they’re a problem. I could have made this meme and I love the feature.)

        Developing on a team at a company is like the “Wild West.” What’s considered to be acceptable will not only vary from workplace to workplace, but it can also fluctuate as developers and managers come and Go. Each of them have their own unique personality with their own outlook on what “quality” code looks like. (And many of them do not care about code quality whatsoever. They just need to survive 1-2 years there, make management happy with speedy deliveries, and then they can move on to the next company with a 30% pay bump.)

        Having experienced working with developers who frequently filled with code base with unused code while having no control over who will leave or join as a contributor to the code base, I think features like this make for a more sane development experience when you’re developing with a team of seemingly random people that you never personally invited to contribute to the code base.

        will not merge your PR unless the stricter rules are met.

        This doesn’t fly when you work in big corporate and the boss doesn’t care about the code meeting stricter rules. “A working prototype? No it’s not- that’s an MVP! Deploy it to production now and move onto the next project!”

    • redcalcium ( redcalcium@lemmy.institute ) 
      11·
      3 years ago

      It costs a lot of time reasoning about it during pull request and it costs a lot of time arguing with coworkers who swear that they’re going to need that code in there next week (they never need that code).

      You should go to your team leader and ask them to enforce a coding standard. I agree with other commenters that said this should be a warning instead of an error.