In the two years since I've posted I want off Mr Golang's Wild Ride, it's made the rounds time and time again, on Reddit, on Lobste.rs, on HackerNews, and elsewhere.

And every time, it elicits the same responses:

• You talk about Windows: that's not what Go is good at! (Also, who cares?)
• This is very one-sided: you're not talking about the sides of Go!

I still get excited about programming languages. But these days, it's not so much because of what they let me do, but rather what they don't let me do.

Ultimately, what you can with a programming language is seldom limited by the language itself: there's nothing you can do in C++ that you can't do in C, given infinite time.

As long as a language is turing-complete and compiles down to assembly, no matter the interface, it's the same machine you're talking to. You're limited by... what your hardware can do, how much memory it has (and how fast it is), what kind of peripherals are plugged into it, and so on.

Here's a sentence I find myself saying several times a week:

...or we could just box it.

There's two remarkable things about this sentence.

The first, is that the advice is very rarely heeded, and instead, whoever I just said it to disappears for two days, emerging victorious, basking in the knowledge that, YES, the compiler could inline that, if it wanted to.

without

The Nature weekly journal of science was first published in 1869. And after one and a half century, it has finally completed one cycle of carcinization, by publishing an article about the Rust programming language.

It's a really good article.

What I liked about this article is that it didn't just talk about performance, or even just memory safety - it also talked about correctness.

I've been banging the same drum for years: APIs must be carefully designed.

This statement doesn't resonate the same way with everyone. In order to really understand what I mean by "careful API design", one has to have experienced both ends of the spectrum.

But there is a silver lining - once you have experienced "good design", it's really hard to go back to the other kind. Even after acknowledging that "good design" inevitably comes at a cost, whether it's cognitive load, compile times, making hiring more challenging, etc.

My honeymoon with the Go language is extremely over.

This article is going to have a different tone from what I've been posting the past year - it's a proper rant. And I always feel bad writing those, because, inevitably, it discusses things a lot of people have been working very hard on.

In spite of that, here we are.

Having invested thousands of hours into the language, and implemented several critical (to my employer) pieces of infrastructure with it, I wish I hadn't.

Looking at that latest mental model, it's.. a bit suspicious that every program ends up calling the same set of functions. It's almost like something different happens when calling those.

Are those even regular functions? Can we step through them with a debugger?

If we run our stdio-powered C program in gdb, and break on read, we can confirm that we indeed end up calling a function (which is called here, but oh well):

Let's play a game: your objective is to guess a word, but you can only ask yes or no questions. You should also aim to ask as few questions as possible.

You might have played a variant of this game before, guessing famous actors or musicians. You'd usually ask questions like "Are they alive?", or "Have they won an Oscar"? And that would allow you to narrow down the possibilities, until you finally resort to a list of direct guesses ("Is it Amy Adams?") or simply give up.