Thoughts on Go 1.1

14 minute read Published:

I’d like to share a few thoughts I have about the Go programming language after implementing my very first and currently only project in it. This may be a bit premature since I don’t have much experience with it, so if you have some advice to give or some justifications to make then please comment back. I’m always eager to learn new things!

For future readers, it should be known that at the time of this writing (2013-05-22), Go 1.1 was just recently released, so all of this observation is specific to that version and not to any newer version that obviously doesn’t exist yet.

Fair warning: there are some strong opinions expressed here. I make no apology for having strong opinions, but perhaps the tone in which those opinions are expressed might be offensive and I will preemptively apologize for that. It’s hard for me to decouple the passion from the tone.

Language features:

First off, let’s address the biggest elephants in the room:

  1. usage of nil instead of the much more common null to represent the lack of a value for a reference type
  2. non-nullable strings
  3. import with an unused package is a compiler error
  4. identifier case determines package exposure

I don’t think that nil and null in terms of reference values (or the absence of such) are two different concepts here so there’s really no reason that I can see for going with nil over null. It seems contrarian in nature. I’ll just dispense with the nillity and say null from now on and you should know what I mean.

Strings in the Go language act like reference types, and since all other reference types are nullable, why not strings? The idea that the empty string is equivalent to the null string is utter nonsense. Anyone who preaches or practices this has no appreciation for the real expressive value of nullability or optionality. Having a way to represent a missing value as opposed to an empty value (or zero value) is a good thing.

Now, if strings were non-nullable AND there were a more general optionality feature of the type system to make any non-nullable type into a nullable one, THEN that would be nice. In that case, the nullability of a type would be decoupled from the type itself and I would agree then that string should be non-nullable, like every other basic type should be. I’ve yet to see this kind of clean type system design in the family of curly-brace languages. An example syntax off the top of my head would be string? (nullable string) vs. string (non-nullable default string) and int? vs. int and bool? vs. bool, etc. You see where I’m going.

The most popular complaint that I’ve seen is that all imported packages must be used or you get a compiler error. This compiler error is just downright stupid. I see the intention, and I can kinda get why this was done. But the developers chose to stick to their guns and suggest workarounds for the obvious deficiency, and this is where things get worse. The suggested workaround is to define a dummy variable in your code using some exported member of the package. This workaround is a worse code smell than the original problem of having an “unclean” import section! What were they thinking?! Nonsense. Give me a compiler option to turn that stupidity off at the very least. I should be the one who decides whether an import list should be exact or not, not my compiler nor its over-zealous authors. We’ll revisit this a little bit later in a dumb little narrative.

Riding on the package import error’s heels is the requirement that public members of packages must start with an uppercase character. Character case should not decide such an important aspect and also somewhat volatile fact of a package’s member. During development you might start out with everything private and then maybe wish to expose things later, or even vice versa. Having to change the exposure of a package member will mean having to rename all instances of its usage. What a needless pain. It also makes the export list of the package less discoverable. An export clause at the top of the package file would do fine and serve as better documentation.

There are other issues with forced character casing that arise in marshalling of data to JSON and XML, for instance. Granted there are “tags” that one can apply to struct members in order to provide marshalling hints but the simple fact that you can’t cleanly represent your struct members as close to how you wish to represent the marshalled data is a shame.

Now that the big elephants are out of the way, the rest of the language is more or less competent. The only other major complaint at this point would be the lack of generics. You can’t really cleanly bolt generics onto an already-released language. C# and Java both learned that lesson the hard way. It really has to be baked in from the start. That is, of course, unless you want to just cut a swath of breaking changes in with version 2.0 of your language to get generics in. I guess it depends on the boldness of the language development team. I personally would be fine with breaking changes if they introduced a much more powerful feature that took out a lot of warts and inconsistencies.

There is a bit of silliness that arises from the consequences of how semicolons are elided at the lexer level. For instance, if you separate out a method call expression onto multiple lines where each line is a parameter expression terminated by a comma, then the last parameter line must also terminate with a comma even if the very last line contains the closing paren of the method call expression. Perhaps an example will help:

    param2,  // <- this comma is **required**

This isn’t a huge deal, but it does sorta make things look messy. Now, I’m all for acceptable usage of extra trailing commas in things like list initializers because they’re useful there, but for a standard method call expression that doesn’t have a variable number of parameters it’s kind of misleading. Your eye parses the last param line expecting another one and gets misdirected to the ending paren unexpectedly. Where’d the last-last param go? Oh, there isn’t one? Hm, okay. Weird.

Don’t forget that this extra comma is only required IF you format your code in this style. Obvious response is “well don’t format it that way”. My obvious response to that would be “Screw you. I’ll format my code how I think my code should be formatted and how I want to read it. Your idiotic lexer hacks to elide semicolons are getting in my way.” After coding for 20+ years with semicolons I have no objections to them and it’s just second nature at this point to type them in anyway.

(Side-note: Yes I’m only 30 years old and yes I’ve been coding for 20+ years since I was 8 years old. Deal with it.)

Go lacks a native enum type. Its replacement is the somewhat less obvious combination of a type declaration with a const section that describes a series of constant values outside the namespace of that new named type that should act as the enum’s type name. Here’s an example:

type sortBy int
const (
    sortByName sortBy = iota

All that code just to effectively create an enum named sortBy that would’ve been this brief in C# or Java or C++:

enum sortBy {

Of course we could make both of those even more brief, but the comparison here is fair I think. The Go version is needlessly more wordy for this most common of cases. Granted, I like the iota concept. That’s really cool, but there’s no reason that we can’t get iota into a native enum type in Go. Furthermore, the lack of the namespace for the enum members means that they end up at your package level with pseudo-namespace identifiers which makes things get a bit wordy. At that point you might as well just go back to writing C code with ENUMNAME_MACROS_LIKE_THIS to define enum members.

There’s the horrid syntax of map[K]V. This just makes my eyes bleed, but given the present lack of generics and the inability to design anything less ugly I guess I’ll deal with it. I just can’t bring myself to type that in here again, so let’s just move on.

Why is len a built-in global function and not a built-in method on slice/array types? len(slice) could just as easily be slice.Length() but it’s not. Granted, my syntax is longer, but is obviously more consistent in appearance with other method calls.

I do like Go’s slice support, but I think they didn’t take it far enough. They should’ve taken a leaf from Python’s book and implemented negative end values to denote positions from the end of the slice instead of having to compute that offset yourself. The D programming language almost got there with its $ token to represent the length of the slice e.g. a[0 .. $ - 1], but I think I’ll give the bronze to Python here for a[0:-1]. Go has neither, and forces you to a[0 : len(a) - 1].

The simpleton will say, “but what’s wrong with that?” And I will reply, “Fine, then try this package.GetSomething(lots of parameters here)[0 : len(package.GetSomething(lots of parameters here) - 4].” Did you get lost? Did you recompute something there that you shouldn’t have? Sure you can just pull it out to a separate variable on the line above and refactor the entire expression you just cooked up. Or you could just say package.GetSomething(lots of parameters here)[0 : -4] and you’re done.

Now if you’re a Go expert and you know something that I don’t about this, then it’s not in the (rather terse) language specs. I checked.


I think the most confusing part of the language is that interface implementation is entirely implicit and not discoverable at all. At first I thought this would be kind of cool, but unless you’re intimately familiar with all implementation details of all packages, you’re never going to know what interfaces a given type implements. This makes using the standard library a nightmare.

Okay, this method wants a Reader … do I have a Reader here? What is that? Oh geez, now I have to look at the type the library exposed to me to check if it even implements that interface… Oh of course it doesn’t state it obviously anywhere so I have to read their source code or gleam that fact by glancing at ALL their exported methods for ALL their types. If my human-eye parser is off by a token or two then whoops! I guessed wrong. Oh, that interface accepts a POINTER to that type but not a copy of.

All this is fine, of course, but Go(d) forbid you have a dirty import list! THE HORROR! How could you not know that you don’t need that time package despite the fact that the os.FileInfo has a ModTime() that gives you back a time.Time that may or may not require you to use the format string constant from the time package!? If you don’t need that format string then you don’t need the time package and you’re a bad developer for importing it as a precaution. Oh wait, now you do need that format string constant? Well, you should’ve imported that time project! What’s wrong with you?

Let’s not forget about the fact that interface{} is the preferred way to represent the any type. Which makes me wonder… WHY NOT JUST ALIAS IT AS any AND BE DONE WITH IT? I don’t want to type interface{} everywhere when I could just as easily type any. Save the pinkies!

I do understand why that is done and it is pretty cool that the language lets you just embed an unnamed type declaration where a type is required (unless that is false which makes this whole justification section moot), but why not just alias that awful syntax to something much simpler and more meaningful? The fact that interface{} is the catch-all interface is cute and all, but I don’t think we need to encode that fact directly in that representation throughout all code.

Standard Library :

The terminology present in the standard library is just foreign and awkward. Let’s take a few examples:

html.EscapeString. Escape? No, we’re ENCODING HTML here, not escaping. HTML has its own encoding. It is not a string literal to have certain characters escaped with escape characters, like a "C \"string\" does with the \\ backslash escape char". HTML is a different language, not an escaped string. Point made? Okay, moving on.

net.Dial. Dial? I haven’t heard “dial” in serious use since the good old days of dialing into BBSes with my 57.6k baud modem (if I was even lucky enough to get that baud rate). “Hello, operator? Can you dial a TCP address for me? My fingers are too fat to mash the keypad with.” Nowadays we just “Connect” to things. Try to keep up.

rune for characters? What? No. No. No. No no no. Why not char LIKE EVERY OTHER LANGUAGE ON THE PLANET? What new value does the term “rune” bring to the table other than to just be obscuritan and contrarian like with your usage of nil? My keyboard here does not carve runes into stone tables for archaeologists to unearth and decipher 2,000 years from now. My keyboard is for typing characters. Let’s get with the times here.

Then there’s the complete lack of support for null strings in the JSON encoder. Really? You can’t call that a JSON encoder in my book. This means that you have to design your JSON-friendly structs to have interface{} where you really just mean a string that could sometimes be null? Awful.

Pile on top of that the idiotic uppercase-letter-means-public decision and you get this rule: “The json package only accesses the exported fields of struct types ( those that begin with an uppercase letter ). Therefore only the exported fields of a struct will be present in the JSON output.” (emphasis added). That’s quoted right from the JSON documentation.


Let me point out some of the features that I really enjoy so that we don’t end on a completely negative note here.

First, the runtime is extremely solid. I haven’t had my HTTP server process that I wrote in Go go down at all, even when it’s faced with boneheaded developer mistakes. I think that says a lot. Good on you guys for a rock solid implementation.

The concurrency model is solid. I don’t have much experience with channels yet, but that’s definitely the right direction to go. I am getting the benefits of the concurrency model with http.Serve and friends without even having to explicitly deal with it in my code at all. I like that. Keep it up.

The multi-valued-return functions are awesome and reduce a lot of unnecessary control flow boilerplate. Combined with the pragmatic if statement, there’s definitely power there, e.g. if v, err := pkg.GetSomething(); err != nil { yay! }.

Raw string literals are just great. No more really needs to be said here. I like that the back-tick character (not rune) was used for these strings. C# did well enough with @"raw string literals" but the double quote is such a common character that you have to double-up on them to escape them, e.g. @"""". I definitely prefer back-ticks. I’m much less likely to require a literal back-tick character in my strings than a double quote character.

Implicit typing is wonderful with the := operator.

Multi-valued assignment is simply awesome, e.g. a, b = b, a to implement a simple a, b swap operation. I need to take more advantage of that in my code.

The lack of required parens for the if statement is great but comes at a high cost of requiring that the statement body be surrounded in curly-braces in all cases. This restriction is a bit annoying for simple for-loop if (filterout) continue; cases.

Grouping function parameters by type is awesome, e.g. func Less(i, j int)

The name-type order rule contrary to the more common type-name rule is a welcome change, e.g. i int vs. int i.

I do agree with Go’s explicit error handling strategy via multi-return values and if statements. I’m mostly against exceptions and their ubiquitous use of handling all error cases. From a reliability standpoint, explicit error handling is far easier to deal with than a virtually unbounded set of exceptions that I can’t easily reason about.

Summary :

Once you get past the warts and big issues and find the workarounds, you can get really productive in this little language. I am mostly impressed at this point and want to see bigger and better things. So far, it’s the best option I have for writing reliable network services with, HTTP or otherwise, and having them execute efficiently.