Skip to main content

A Week with Go, Day 3

The first two days of tinkering and scouring helped me form an opinion of Go based on its syntax. To form a more-informed opinion I would have to write some more code and see how much resistance I experienced along the way. What features were missing? How was typing applied? I wrote a rudimentary version of Deal or No Deal, and slowly some of those meaningless sections in the language spec started taking on more meaning.

I decided to store the case amounts as an integer array (nobody likes the 0.01 anyway!) and came across my first bit of frustration and misunderstanding when it came time to shuffle the amounts.
cases = []int{100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 750, 1000,
    5000, 10000, 50000}
shuffle(cases)

func shuffle(arr []int) {
        rand.Seed(time.Nanoseconds())
        for i := len(arr) - 1; i > 0; i-- {
                j := rand.Intn(i)
                arr[i], arr[j] = arr[j], arr[i]
        }
}
The language spec says arrays are value types and slices are reference types. shuffle was doing what I wanted, but why was Go manipulating the array values if cases was supposed to be passed by value? I posted the question on Stack Overflow and it became clear that cases was a slice. I had written []int{} expecting the behavior of [...]int{}. Hopefully this will be the first and last time I make this mistake, but I have a feeling it won't be even with a correct understanding of what Go is doing. The syntax is just too similar. I don't understand why almost identical syntax was chosen for two different concepts here but different syntax was chosen for identical concepts with var = vs :=.

And I was lucky I only needed to shuffle a list of integer values; Go doesn't have generics, so I wouldn't be able to easily write a general-purpose shuffle function. It feels "dirty" to write shufflei(arr []int), shufflef(arr []float), etc. since the functions would all be identical except for their signatures!

The appeal of clean-looking code, novel looping, and an official formatting utility was waning because of issues and deficiencies more integral to the language and its implementation. Go is still nascent, but we shouldn't be revisiting these problems in a modern programming language.

Feel free to share your impressions of Go in the comments below and come back tomorrow for day 4. If you're interested, here's my Deal or No Deal code.

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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 ...
6 comments
Read more

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 ...
9 comments
Read more

Safely Identify Dependencies for Chrooting

The most difficult part of setting up a chroot environment is identifying dependencies for the programs you want to copy to the jail. For example, to make cp available, not only do you need to copy its binary from /bin and any shared libraries it depends on, but the dependencies can have their own dependencies too that need to be copied. The internet suggests using ldd to list a binary’s dependencies, but that has its own problems. The man page for ldd warns not to use the script for untrusted programs because it works by setting a special environment variable and then executes the program. What’s a security-conscious systems administrator to do? The ldd man page recommends objdump as a safe alternative. objdump outputs information about an object file, including what shared libraries it links against. It doesn’t identify the dependencies’ dependencies, but it’s still a good start because it doesn’t try to execute the target file. We can overcome the dependencies of depende...
Post a Comment
Read more