this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2025
98 points (87.1% liked)
Programmer Humor
36826 readers
28 users here now
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
- No NSFW content.
- Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The Go programming language documentation makes a big deal about how it "reads from left to right." Like, if you were describing the program in English, the elements of the Go program go in the same order as they would in English.
I say this as someone who likes Go as a language and writes more of it than any other language: I honestly don't entirely follow. One example they give is how you specify a type that's a "slice" (think "list" or "array" or whatever from other languages) of some other type. For instance a "slice of strings" would be written
[]string
. The[]
on the left means it's a slice type. Andstring
on the right specifies what it's a slice of.But does it really make less sense to say "a string slice"?
In Go, the type always comes after the variable name. A declaration might look like:
Similarly in function declarations:
Anyway, I guess all that to say I don't mind the Go style, but I don't fully understand the point of it being the way it is, and wouldn't mind if it was the other way around either.
Edit: Oh, I might add that my brain will never use the term "a slice of bytes" for
[]byte
. That will forever be "a byte slice" to me. I simply have no choice in the matter. Somehow my brain is much more ok with "a slice of strings", though.Both of those declarations look weird to me. In Haskell it would be:
... except that makes
bob
a function taking a tuple and it's much more idiomatic to curry it instead:The
[T]
syntax also has a prefix form[] T
, so[String]
could also be written[] String
.OCaml makes the opposite choice. In OCaml, a list of strings would be written
string list
, and a set of lists of strings would bestring list set
, a list of lists of integersint list list
, etc.