text stringlengths 0 2.35k |
|---|
• Red/black trees are too complex to test beginners on, and the speaker suggests creating a generic library for them instead. |
• The speaker discusses their approach to interviewing candidates, focusing on assessing their ability to learn rather than just their existing knowledge. |
• The speaker believes that people can grow and develop skills with opportunities and experience, and that giving people a chance to prove themselves is valuable. |
• The speaker's background and motivation for creating the workshop: they started with C++ and wanted to share their experience of teaching object-oriented programming in Go. |
• Pascal and its influence on Go and Ruby programming languages |
• Ronna Steinberg's difficulty remembering her experience with Pascal and Java due to the education system |
• Discussion of language features and how they are used (or not used) in code |
• The idea that people often don't take advantage of a language's full potential, and that this is "sad" |
• Use cases for Go programming language, including its ability to handle explicit interfaces and avoid intermediate layers of code |
• Difficulty writing good packages and extending functionality in Go |
• Discussion of the open-close principles and how to define what makes a package or class well-written. |
• Ian Lopshire's experience of gaining confidence in coding through a challenging internship interview |
• Discussion of the potential impact of AI-generated code on programming languages and their evolution |
• The idea that AI may not write OOP (object-oriented programming) code, but instead create something new |
• Ronna Steinberg's unpopular opinion that Go should be open to being influenced by non-Gophers and learn from them |
• Proposal for a poll to gauge listeners' reaction to Steinberg's opinion |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** Good evening, afternoon, morning or night, everyone who's joining us live, or listening to this later. This episode Ian and me are being joined by Ronna to talk about object-oriented programming. And we'll start by introducing Ronna, I guess. Ronna, you are an engineering manager at Delivery He... |
Now we're here to talk about these workshops that you've been crafting since 2017, that you've been giving to meetup Women Who Go Berlin. The most recent one that you'll happen to give at GopherCon Europe later this month, on the topic of actually object-oriented design in Go. |
So as a preparation for this episode, we were figuring out how each of us pronounces the short term for object-oriented programming. Ronna, how do you say that? The three-letter acronym. |
**Ronna Steinberg:** You mean OOP? |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** OOP? Well, I guess it's two versus one, Ian. You pronounce this the same. |
**Ian Lopshire:** \[04:13\] Yeah, OOP. |
**Ronna Steinberg:** I have to say, for the past month or so I've been writing OO a lot, and it looks like "Uh-oh..." the emoji. \[laughs\] And it feels very symbolic to the state of object-oriented. |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** I somehow always thought it's Oop. |
**Ronna Steinberg:** You thought it was Oop? |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** I guess it's because last time I used this term was in university, and it's been a while since. |
**Ronna Steinberg:** And you used to say Oop? |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** Yeah, we used to say Oop. |
**Ronna Steinberg:** Ian, what do you say? |
**Ian Lopshire:** I definitely say OOP. I don't think I've ever heard someone call it Oop before, until ten minutes ago. |
**Ronna Steinberg:** This is definitely a debate worth having. |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** Yeah, that can be a poll. Maybe this can even be my unpopular opinion. There. I thought I had none. So we can say is sort of one big unpopular opinion, coming with the claim, Ronna, that Go can be an object-oriented programming language. |
**Ronna Steinberg:** Well, I mean, I definitely don't think it's not... \[laughs\] So what happened was that I wanted to share with my team how to do object-oriented programming with Go, and then I kind of realized by looking at actual interview questions/answers/feedback how things are happening in my organization, wh... |
So it's more about how to use the tools that you have with the language properly, and especially now with generics going into the language, solving a last kind of edge case that we didn't have... So yeah, I posted that I was going to do that internally in the organization, and immediately, a lot of people that I had ne... |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** So tell us about some of that feedback or opinions that you got. |
**Ronna Steinberg:** \[laughs\] It's quite amazing... So everybody has an opinion. Some people were with me and wanted to share that they agree that Go can be object-oriented, which was really nice. What was really nice about it was that everybody can find a resource to support their claim, which I found amazing. It's ... |
To explain why I think it's an object-oriented language, I should probably explain why I think it's definitely more object-oriented, for instance, than other languages that are considered object-oriented... And I'm looking at you, Java. And here's my case. Listen up. \[laughs\] Java - yes, sure, it has inheritance, but... |
\[08:19\] Now, I came from C++, so I kind of had this multiple inheritance. I used to be very expressive with inheritance, and when I look at Java, when I look at Ruby - Pythonistas, I'm sorry, I'm not familiar enough with your language to make a case... But when I look at Java and when I look at Ruby I see that you ca... |
Now, interfaces are -- Go has this dramatic effect that interfaces are implicit in Java, and a class has to be aware, to be able to instantiate A as type interface I, A has to be aware of I at the time of writing. So that means that to plug A as I, you have to do something. It could be generics, it could be some sort o... |
In Ruby we also see how modules are kind of replacing generics, and what people used to do in other languages to sort of be able to very expressive that something is also something else. So the answer is that I think that Go is object-oriented. I'm leaning towards yes. I do see why people don't think so, but yeah, that... |
**Ian Lopshire:** Can we go through some of the reasons people said it wasn't? Like, because it lacks inheritance... Like, what features are missing that people are like "It's not object-oriented"? |
**Ronna Steinberg:** I think it's about the styling. So yes, most people talk about the lack of hierarchy, the composition over -- what's the word I'm looking for...? |
**Ian Lopshire:** Inheritance? |
**Ronna Steinberg:** I guess... I mean, I think there is a general term for inheritance, but yeah. |
**Ian Lopshire:** Okay. |
**Ronna Steinberg:** I think people do a lot of procedural coding with Go. You don't have constructors, for instance. And why do you not have constructors? Because anything can be a type. An integer can be a new type... You can define a new type in pretty much any way that you want. So you don't really have constructor... |
It is very difficult to define a type and allow anybody to make any changes, so you cannot really tell -- how do you tell if it's corrupt or not? How do you write any kind of defensive code in that situation? |
We also have these best practices -- I mean, I don't like the word "best practices", because I think that I usually use the word "common practice" to explain... Because it's not always best. There's a case for pretty much anything. But the common practices are "Everything is public, anyone can do anything with \[uninte... |
So that's where I am... I am curious though if we're getting any remarks from our listeners. Maybe they have some opinions... |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** Not just yet, but maybe any minute now. |
**Ronna Steinberg:** Hopefully. One can only hope. |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** \[12:11\] I'd be curious to hear what are some of the feedback that you've got over email, like what are the pros -- the people who agreed or disagreed. You said that they were all backing their claims, which is wonderful; it means you have generally a great discussion... |
**Ronna Steinberg:** Well, \[unintelligible 00:12:25.00\] |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** "Expected practices", or what was the term you used? Common practices? That's great, so tell us about them. |
**Ronna Steinberg:** Well, the first comment that I got - that was really funny - was "Aren't generics enough OOP now? Really?" Something like that. \[laughs\] I thought that was hilarious. So people do refer me a lot to the Go FAQs that specifically say that the answer to whether Go is object-oriented or not is "Yes a... |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** I actually prepared it for you. Let me read this out. |
**Ronna Steinberg:** Oh, amazing. |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** "Yes and no. Although Go has types and methods and it allows an object-oriented style of programming, there is no type hierarchy. The concept of interface in Go provides a different approach that we believe is easy to use, and in some ways more general. There are also ways to embed types in oth... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.