I’ve had the opportunity to use Go for my most recent project at work. The stuff I’ve done in Go is a minimally distributed system (two types of servers, tens of instances max) optimized for byte slinging throughput. The relationship with Go started out a bit rocky but got turned around.

After using it for a couple weeks, I described Go to my friend David as “PHP for the backend.” Despite my pretty low opinion of PHP, this was intended as a compliment. Regardless of the quality of the execution of PHP, the intent seems to have been to get out of your way and make building web pages easy. Go feels like that but for services. PHP is horribly inconsistent, breaks all the rules about programming language design, and is infuriating. Despite all that, it’s still the most widely used language for building web apps.

Go is rather similar – it is inconsistent, ignores anything a modern programming language is supposed to include, doesn’t use whitespace, except to disallow it in reasonable places (say, as a newline before a {). It offers nice first class functions, but then cripples them by having a strong type system which seems to ignore everything that has been done with type systems for the last couple decades. You cannot even write a proper map(...) because Go is strongly typed with no type parameterization. Go really wants to use tabs.

To top it off, errors are return values. They are return values which are easy to ignore. Idiommatic Go is to have several lines of boilerplate after every single function invocation which can possibly fail.

I got really annoyed, flamed Go on Twitter, and went for a walk. When I came back, several friends, in particular Toby had commented in IM about my issues, pointing out ways of trying to handle what I was being annoyed by. They were all very reasonable, but basically came down to something along the lines of, “Go doesn’t do what you are trying to do; there are some brutal hacks to approximate it, like how you do functional-ish programming in Java, but your are fighting the system.”

Calmed down, I stepped back. I know of folks having great success with Go, and it offers a lot that I want (native code, UNIX friendly, higher level then C, lower level then Python or Ruby, garbage collected, strongly typed, good performance, good concurrency support, etc), so I tried to stop programming my way, and start programming Go’s way.

Go has a way of programming. Go is totally optimized for that way of programming, in fact. Programming any way other than Go’s way, with Go, will be that recipe for frustration I bounced my skull against. Go’s way is not pretty to someone indoctrinated with the modern functional aesthetic, but it works, and works well. Really well.

Go’s inconsistencies and limitations hold together, bizarrely enough. They steer code towards particular structures and behavior that are good. Based on my limited experience (I am still a Go novice, I have been using it in anger for only about three weeks), Go seems to be as much, or more, about how it is used as how the language itself works. It seems to be optimized for solving design issues a particular way, and for solving issues around programming (again, a particular way), rather then for being a maximally expressive or powerful language.

This, of course, should not have been a surprise to me. Every presentation, description of purpose, etc, about Go says this. I had read them and said, “that makes sense, sure.” I still went into it looking at the language and wanting to use the language to solve the problems I had in the way I conceptualized them. That failed. When I adopted Go’s way of working (as I slowly started to see it) things succeeded. I also relearned some fundamental things I already knew but had apparently forgotten.

I look forward to using Go more.

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.