Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

D being rather unpopular (#23 at the TIOBE index of July 2017) at the moment compared to Google's Go, which is impressively climbing the charts at high speed, then I think we shouldn't worry too much about D's decline... ;) On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 10:18:21 AM UTC+1, Russel Winder wrote:

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

On Mon, 2017-07-31 at 12:21 -0500, John McKown wrote: > […] > An excellent approach to all languages. If someone doesn't like "go", > then use a different language. Or be like some people and invent your own > to address the perceived problems with all the other languages in existence. > Once a

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > ​ > > > > I think it's time to let this thread go back to sleep again. I think > that every possible point of view has already been expressed. > ​I agree. Not that anyone is impressed by that. [grin] > > The

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Hrobjartur Thorsteinsson wrote: > Hi Mr. Bushnell, > The code block identifier, in Go are { }. They are already part of the > syntax if I'm not mistaken. > Go proudly aiming to be a simplifying, lowest common denominator language >

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

Hi Mr. Bushnell, The code block identifier, in Go are { }. They are already part of the syntax if I'm not mistaken. Go proudly aiming to be a simplifying, lowest common denominator language makes sense to me. In that sense, the { signs tightly bound to declarations and control statements is

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 10:36 AM wrote: > > But as Gofmt can ALREADY enforces this common coding style, and can be run > at any time, including before committing code on the depots, why should it > be enforced by the COMPILER too ? > The compiler does not enforce the

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

The irony is that I don't even use the automatic semi-colon insertion feature. I'm used to add them manually anyway, even in Go, as whenever possible I tend to program in a less idiomatic way (for loops, semi-colons, etc) which allows me to easily port substantial parts of my code from one

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 10:36 AM, wrote: > > ... > > But as Gofmt can ALREADY enforces this common coding style, and can be run > at any time, including before committing code on the depots, why should it > be enforced by the COMPILER too ? > > Really, that's the one

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 5:50:55 PM UTC-6, Hrobjartur Thorsteinsson wrote: > > This confusing coding style with syntax in Go can be fixed by forking and > applying a rediculously small patch. > > Forking is easy, but to get people to actually use a fork, support it, and embrace it, is a

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

actually python is very normal, in that it does not confuse encapsulation with syntax. Go has the credit for exploring this exciting new frontier I think. 31. júl. 2017 12:08 f.h. skrifaði "Florin Pățan" : > This thread was dead for three years, but thanks for keeping the

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

This thread was dead for three years, but thanks for keeping the dream alive. Hate Go's style as much as you want, avoid Go because of this, it doesn't matter. gofmt's only purpose is so that by having the uniformity of the source code, everyone that can write Go code can do so anywhere. You

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

"And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules." -- Captain Hector Barbossa On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 10:37:11 AM UTC-7, ecstati...@gmail.com wrote: > > Sorry to repeat myself, but I think I wasn't clear enough, as many people > on this forum still don't

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 6:20:00 PM UTC-6, Matt Harden wrote: > > "me": regarding purely functional programs, they can exist, but they can't > actually "do" anything, since by definition, "doing" means altering some > state in the outside world. > Then are they even a program? That

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

its luxury that sudden support for allman style would be backwards compatible and future proof. No airplanes would crash. 30. júl. 2017 12:35 skrifaði "Jan Mercl" <0xj...@gmail.com>: On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 2:06 PM wrote: > Personally I'd prefer a simple compiler

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 2:06 PM wrote: > Personally I'd prefer a simple compiler option :) You must be kidding, aren't you? It would be a horrible decision to introduce such compiler option. Keywords: Python 3. The debate about semicolon injection was relevant about

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

Can we please, collectively, decide that this thread serves no productive purpose anymore and abandon it? The only thing it is doing is inviting ad-hominem attacks and hostile behaviors from all sides of the debate. No matter where you stand on this, please abide by the spirit of the community CoC

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

Anyway, even if I was a bit angry by the "ad personam" attack, I want to say that even if the Go compiler maintainers don't or can't fix this because of their semi-colon insertion algorithm, it's not a problem for me to use Go as it is. As I develop in Helix, now I don't care about that

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

Personally I'd prefer a simple compiler option :) On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 12:50:55 AM UTC+1, Hrobjartur Thorsteinsson wrote: > > Dude, you are right. This confusing coding style with syntax in Go can be > fixed by forking and applying a rediculously small patch. Jeez, lets stop >

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

LOL ;) On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 9:36:26 AM UTC+1, ohir wrote: > > On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 16:56:05 -0700 (PDT) > ecstati...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Anyway, thanks for the fun. Where is the popcorn ? LOL > >Q.E.D. > > -- > Wojciech S. Czarnecki > << ^oo^ >> OHIR-RIPE > -- You received

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 16:56:05 -0700 (PDT) ecstatic.co...@gmail.com wrote: > Anyway, thanks for the fun. Where is the popcorn ? LOL Q.E.D. -- Wojciech S. Czarnecki << ^oo^ >> OHIR-RIPE -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

Ok, I can agree with you. But the only problem is that often, the reason why many developers *decide* to switch from the K to Allman at some point in their career (like me) is because they think that sparing these few lines in code height to the price of breaking the blocks natural alignment

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

Without apologies, I am linking to the official Google survey... LOL What changes would improve Go most ? #1. 572 (16%) generics (https://blog.golang.org/survey2016-results) Whoops ;) So you mean that 16% of us are so stupid we don't want to copy paste the code and adjust it, or use

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

LOL, obviously you haven't read my previous posts ;) Ok, I'll repeat it then, no problem. I'm actually the developer of an open source preprocessor (Genesis) that can also be used to add Allman style and pseudo-generics to Go. And internally I also use a templating language similar to PHP

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

Dude, you are right. This confusing coding style with syntax in Go can be fixed by forking and applying a rediculously small patch. Jeez, lets stop complaining as u rightfully suggested. 29. júl. 2017 10:43 e.h. skrifaði "Wojciech S. Czarnecki" : > On Sat, 29 Jul 2017 10:36:42

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

Without apologies, I am linking to a post I wrote seconds ago regarding generics. It applies here equally. Perhaps more so, since the percentage of brace-complainers is a tiny fraction of the percentage of generics-whiners: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/golang-nuts/hQiZsd1ZRdA/DSgV7CX7BwAJ --

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 7:36 PM wrote: > But as Gofmt can ALREADY enforces this common coding style, and can be run at any time, including before committing code on the depots, why should it be enforced by the COMPILER too ? Let me pick just one misconception. The

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

I understand you now. On Sat, Jul 29, 2017 at 10:36 AM wrote: > Sorry to repeat myself, but I think I wasn't clear enough, as many people > on this forum still don't understand my point at all. > > Google, as ANY company, MUST force its employees to use exactly the

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

Sorry to repeat myself, but I think I wasn't clear enough, as many people on this forum still don't understand my point at all. Google, as ANY company, MUST force its employees to use exactly the same standards. I've done the same with the engineers in my company. And they used my own code

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Hrobjartur Thorsteinsson wrote: > > Do you realize that the Go lang devs themselves are not actually in > agreement about the original motivations for constraining the language in > this way. Some quote some one true K style, while it is

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

Lovely post, Michael, as usual. http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/Clayskater/media/bWVkaWFJZDoxNzA1MjQzMDM=/ I ran out of pop-corn for this thread some years ago. Does anyone know where I can get some more? It must be butter soaked, cooked over coals and served in a silver tureen, otherwise I

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

o:golang-nuts@googlegroups.com] > *On Behalf Of *Michael Jones > *Sent:* 2017 July 27, Thu 15:38 > *To:* Rob Pike > *Cc:* Ecstatic Coder; golang-nuts > *Subject:* Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go! > > > > Ecstatic, based on what you said here (*"some peopl

RE: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

Cognitive dissonance J John John Souvestre - New Orleans LA From: golang-nuts@googlegroups.com [mailto:golang-nuts@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael Jones Sent: 2017 July 27, Thu 15:38 To: Rob Pike Cc: Ecstatic Coder; golang-nuts Subject: Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

> > John > > John Souvestre - New Orleans LA > > > > *From:* golang-nuts@googlegroups.com [mailto:golang-nuts@googlegroups.com] > *On Behalf Of *ecstatic.co...@gmail.com > *Sent:* 2017 July 27, Thu 03:33 > *To:* golang-nuts > *Cc:* yout...@z505.com > *Sub

RE: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

. John John Souvestre - New Orleans LA From: golang-nuts@googlegroups.com [mailto:golang-nuts@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of ecstatic.co...@gmail.com Sent: 2017 July 27, Thu 03:33 To: golang-nuts Cc: yout...@z505.com Subject: Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go! I don't know

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

but, I have to say, wow, I never realized that curly bracket placement was that important and solved so many of the problems for Google! Do you realize that the Go lang devs themselves are not actually in agreement about the original motivations for constraining the language in this way. Some

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

"me": regarding purely functional programs, they can exist, but they can't actually "do" anything, since by definition, "doing" means altering some state in the outside world. But reasoning as much as possible in a functional way, and expressing your programs in this way (again as much as

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 3:08:08 PM UTC-6, Jan Mercl wrote: > > > Isn't it strange, that we, programmers, well used to model the problem > once in term of CPU registers and raw memory, then in a pure functional > style > I don't know that purely functional actually exists: I have been

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

Ecstatic Coder, I won't take it personally, of course. Feel free to say anything you want to. Michael, great post, as always. The driver illustration is perfect. On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 5:50:05 AM UTC-3, Ecstatic Coder wrote: > > Btw please don't take it personally. > -- You received

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:39 PM Michael Jones wrote: > Ecstatic, ... Excellent post! Isn't it strange, that we, programmers, well used to model the problem once in term of CPU registers and raw memory, then in a pure functional style and then again in some imperative

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

Ecstatic, based on what you said here (*"some people will never be forced to change"* and *"because Google engineers have decided"*), I believe there are a few ideas you may profitably consider about the formatting topic--ideas that you probably have not yet considered and which may ease your

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

Very few, though. Very few. As the proverb says: Gofmt's style is no one's favorite, yet gofmt is everyone's favorite. -rob On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 6:49 PM, Ecstatic Coder wrote: > Btw please don't take it

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

Btw please don't take it personally. What I'm saying is that indeed some people (including me as you see) WILL NEVER agree to be forced to change their coding style because Google engineers have decided so, but that doesn't mean we should stay away from go just because of our mental incapacity to

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

I don't know if you have read this post above : "BTW, I've just released Genesis, an open source generic preprocessor which automatically converts Allman style code into K and allows genericity by parametric instantiation. https://github.com/senselogic/GENESIS Better late than never... ;)"

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

I propose a new rule for our Code of Conduct: Before posting to the "No Allman-Style, No go!" thread, you shall read and understand all previous posts in the aforementioned thread. Justo to be clear: Go indentation style is a time saver. It was carefuly crafted to piss some people off. As you

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

On this last comment, I would like to comment, Overall I agree with last commenter, the coolest programmer is the one that does not have any quarrels about style, just gets along with the group and helps get the job done. That being said, golangs approach to braces a part of logical syntax is

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

On Saturday, July 22, 2017 at 4:59:04 AM UTC-6, ohir wrote: > > > Every development team has right to reformat source to their tastes on > the editor openfile then reformat to compiler taste on savefile. > Except, that some people are minimalists and don't use fancy editors that have all

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

Nice idea, but unfortunately that was not easy to do with my favorite code editor (Geany). That's why I've implemented a preprocessor (Genesis) which converts my Allmann-style files to Golang-style. On Saturday, July 22, 2017 at 11:59:04 AM UTC+1, ohir wrote: > > > Every development team has

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

On Fri, 21 Jul 2017 10:29:18 -0700 (PDT) ecstatic.co...@gmail.com wrote: > Every development team should have the right to freely choose which coding > standard they will enforce. Every development team has right to reformat source to their tastes on the editor openfile then reformat to

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

This is a popular point of view in general (programming tools serve programmers) and the natural and most free spirit of free-form programming languages. It turns out that there is a good argument--an evidence-based theory of software development--that you might want to think about as you form

Re: [go-nuts] Re: No Allman-Style, No go!

> No Allman-Style, No go! It's worth noting that the difference between tabs and spaces is cosmetic and you're right, your editor could handle that for you, but Allman-style is more complex. Having opening braces on the same line is a matter of *syntax* in Go, not style; if you were to write the