Skip to main content

A Week with Go, Day 1

Go is a general purpose systems programming language developed at Google by Robert Griesemer, Rob Pike, and Ken Thompson. Go has been on my radar since it became publicly available a year ago as an open source project, and since then its documentation has been improving and a small community of users has been forming around the language. Last week I had some time off from work that coincided nicely with the Thanksgiving holiday and I thought it'd be fun to spend some of it looking at Go. Here's the first in a series of five posts that share my thoughts and experiences of spending a week with Go.

My first Go programs were solutions to a couple Project Euler solutions. This was just to get a basic feel for its syntax.

Problem 1
package main

import fmt "fmt"

func main() {
    sum := 0
    for i := 0; i < 1000; i++ {
        if i%3 == 0 || i%5 == 0 {
            sum += i
        }
    }
    fmt.Printf("%d\n", sum)
}

There are a few oddities, but overall there's nothing earth shattering with Go's syntax.
  • Parentheses aren't used in constructs like if and for as they are in C, though braces are always required, and semicolons are used as separators-- not terminators. The resulting code looks nice and clean. The lack of terminators is a bit disconcerting, though... have we learned nothing from JavaScript?
  • := elides variable declarations and the compiler will deduce the variable's type, reminiscent of OCaml's type inference (though it doesn't extend to function declarations and the like). The more verbose way of declaring and assigning sum would be var sum int = 0. It's nice once you get the hang of it, but I think this might be a bit confusing for new programmers.

Problem 2
package main

import fmt "fmt"

func main() {
    a, b, c, sum := 0, 1, 0, 0
    for c < 4000000 {
        c = a + b
        a, b = b, c

        if c%2 == 0 {
            sum += c
        }
    }

    fmt.Printf("%d\n", sum)
}

Whoa, Go doesn't have a while loop? Surely this is madness!
  • The designers extended the minimal syntax philosophy to common language constructs as well. Different for variations are used to write not only your traditional for loops, but also while loops and foreach/for in loops. I think for c < 4000000 is a bit awkward to read but it becomes second nature to write in short order.
It's nice to have less keywords and the code looks clean and readable. Despite some hesitance, my opinion was favorable overall after the first day.

Feel free to share your impressions of Go in the comments below and come back tomorrow for day 2.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Writing a Minimal PSR-0 Autoloader

An excellent overview of autoloading in PHP and the PSR-0 standard was written by Hari K T over at PHPMaster.com , and it's definitely worth the read. But maybe you don't like some of the bloated, heavier autoloader offerings provided by various PHP frameworks, or maybe you just like to roll your own solutions. Is it possible to roll your own minimal loader and still be compliant? First, let's look at what PSR-0 mandates, taken directly from the standards document on GitHub : A fully-qualified namespace and class must have the following structure \<Vendor Name>\(<Namespace>\)*<Class Name> Each namespace must have a top-level namespace ("Vendor Name"). Each namespace can have as many sub-namespaces as it wishes. Each namespace separator is converted to a DIRECTORY_SEPARATOR when loading from the file system. Each "_" character in the CLASS NAME is converted to a DIRECTORY_SEPARATOR . The "_" character has no special ...

What's Wrong with OOP

Proponents of Object Oriented Programming feel the paradigm yields code that is better organized, easier to understand and maintain, and reusable. They view procedural programming code as unwieldy spaghetti and embrace OO-centric design patterns as the "right way" to do things. They argue objects are easier to grasp because they model how we view the world. If the popularity of languages like Java and C# is any indication, they may be right. But after almost 20 years of OOP in the mainstream, there's still a large portion of programmers who resist it. If objects truly model the way people think of things in the real world, then why do people have a hard time understanding and working in OOP? I suspect the problem might be the focus on objects instead of actions. If I may quote from Steve Yegge's Execution in the Kingdom of Nouns : Verbs in Javaland are responsible for all the work, but as they are held in contempt by all, no Verb is ever permitted to wander about ...

Learning Prolog

I'm not quite sure exactly I was searching for, but somehow I serendipitously stumbled upon the site learnprolognow.org a few months ago. It's the home for an introductory Prolog programming course. Logic programming offers an interesting way to think about your problems; I've been doing so much procedural and object-oriented programming in the past decade that it really took effort to think at a higher level! I found the most interesting features to be definite clause grammars (DCG), and unification. Difference lists are very powerful and Prolog's DCG syntax makes it easy to work with them. Specifying a grammar such as: s(s(NP,VP)) --> np(NP,X,Y,subject), vp(VP,X,Y). np(np(DET,NBAR,PP),X,Y,_) --> det(DET,X), nbar(NBAR,X,Y), pp(PP). np(np(DET,NBAR),X,Y,_) --> det(DET,X), nbar(NBAR,X,Y). np(np(PRO),X,Y,Z) --> pro(PRO,X,Y,Z). vp(vp(V),X,Y) --> v(V,X,Y). vp(vp(V,NP),X,Y) --> v(V,X,Y), np(NP,_,_,object). nbar(nbar(JP),X,3) --> jp(JP,X). pp(pp(PREP,N...