Matthew Sanabria

But it's still a good language to choose, especially if you're dealing with any sort of cloud environments or Kubernetes.

But it's still a good language to choose, especially if you're dealing with any sort of cloud environments or Kubernetes.

I think at some point the Go team is going to have to rethink their backwards compatibility promise and maybe even think about what a Go 2 would look like.

I think at some point the Go team is going to have to rethink their backwards compatibility promise and maybe even think about what a Go 2 would look like.

Because if they maintain this backwards compatibility is the thing and simplicity is the thing and all of these features that we have to add have to be added in a backwards compatible way, I think they lose in the long run if they keep that mindset personally. I think at some point they should reevaluate and say, we're going to do a Go 2. It's going to be backwards incompatible.

Because if they maintain this backwards compatibility is the thing and simplicity is the thing and all of these features that we have to add have to be added in a backwards compatible way, I think they lose in the long run if they keep that mindset personally. I think at some point they should reevaluate and say, we're going to do a Go 2. It's going to be backwards incompatible.

It's going to have breaking changes, but it's going to allow us to add these things to the language that we've been wanting in a way that feels better than what we're doing it today. And I think that might be something that they want to consider at some point in the future.

It's going to have breaking changes, but it's going to allow us to add these things to the language that we've been wanting in a way that feels better than what we're doing it today. And I think that might be something that they want to consider at some point in the future.

I keep forgetting that they're becoming more load-bearing on the go mod file and like the go directive in there and the tools directive now. They're using the versions listed there for tool chain conditionals. I keep forgetting about that and that is true. They can probably get a long way with that especially since the tool chain is built into the language.

I keep forgetting that they're becoming more load-bearing on the go mod file and like the go directive in there and the tools directive now. They're using the versions listed there for tool chain conditionals. I keep forgetting about that and that is true. They can probably get a long way with that especially since the tool chain is built into the language.

You don't think though that like iterators and generics are kind of, they feel out of place in the language syntactically? You don't feel like they're just kind of too overly verbose or not a first-class citizen so to speak?

You don't think though that like iterators and generics are kind of, they feel out of place in the language syntactically? You don't feel like they're just kind of too overly verbose or not a first-class citizen so to speak?

Yeah, that's fair. I would say that's where I'm okay if someone were to say, here's GoTo, I'm going to take all of those things that are kind of warty in the language and clean up their syntax for a GoTo. I'd be okay with that. Is it something I think is going to happen? Probably not, but I'd be okay if they announced that.

Yeah, that's fair. I would say that's where I'm okay if someone were to say, here's GoTo, I'm going to take all of those things that are kind of warty in the language and clean up their syntax for a GoTo. I'd be okay with that. Is it something I think is going to happen? Probably not, but I'd be okay if they announced that.

Like, what's the artifact, right? Like, that's my question is if I'm using natural language or prose to describe what I want to do, is the artifact that I'm kind of storing and versioning, is it going to be assembly? Is it going to be the prose? What is it, right? So, I think I agree with what Chris is saying for the most part, but there might be some benefit into that intermediate representation

Like, what's the artifact, right? Like, that's my question is if I'm using natural language or prose to describe what I want to do, is the artifact that I'm kind of storing and versioning, is it going to be assembly? Is it going to be the prose? What is it, right? So, I think I agree with what Chris is saying for the most part, but there might be some benefit into that intermediate representation

in a language that is the artifact and that way because you know the average human can't read assembly at all right that's more for machines to read and checking in prose is not technical enough to understand like what it's actually doing so maybe there is a value in that intermediate representation being like go or rust or zig or something and that's what we check in i don't know but i don't think we're going to get there and and i agree like what's the point of it

in a language that is the artifact and that way because you know the average human can't read assembly at all right that's more for machines to read and checking in prose is not technical enough to understand like what it's actually doing so maybe there is a value in that intermediate representation being like go or rust or zig or something and that's what we check in i don't know but i don't think we're going to get there and and i agree like what's the point of it

Feels like it turns into protobuf, but instead of a protobuf to go generation, it's pros to go generation. And it's like, I can just see it now in GitHub. Binary file too large to include or whatever. And you don't actually see the diff. Yeah. But no, I think it's an interesting topic of discussion because it would really be nice.

Feels like it turns into protobuf, but instead of a protobuf to go generation, it's pros to go generation. And it's like, I can just see it now in GitHub. Binary file too large to include or whatever. And you don't actually see the diff. Yeah. But no, I think it's an interesting topic of discussion because it would really be nice.