text stringlengths 0 2.35k |
|---|
**Natalie Pistunovich:** Yeah, that definitely is a fun conversation to have... And if anybody wants to chat about this, we are on the Go Time Slack channel, in the Gophers Slack, so reach out and maybe this will be some future episode. But until then, let's do the tune for the Unpopular Opinion. |
**Jingle:** \[53:25\] to \[53:42\] |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** And now it's time for the unpopular opinion. Ronna, what do you have for us? |
**Ronna Steinberg:** I mean, I felt like the entire show was about -- I have an arsenal of things that I need to convince people about. So I feel that we're going to be much stronger if we collected opinions about Go from people who are not professional Gophers. And instead of teaching them, learn from them a little bi... |
Also, I think that Go added a lot of value to other languages just by existing. Just because Go introduced these features that we discussed. I think we influenced the industry, but I think that we should be open also to be influenced back. |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** So your unpopular opinion is that Go should be open to be influenced by non-gophers. |
**Ronna Steinberg:** Yes. |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** Alright. Let's see how that poll works. This will be a poll, and then let's see if that brings you further into the Hall of Fame of the unpopular opinions. |
**Ronna Steinberg:** Well, Mat said after he put me in the Hall of Fame - he then said that it doesn't exist everywhere. I think that the other people with unpopular opinions are not jealous but as far as I'm concerned, I want that title fair and square, so... \[laughs\] But hey, let's see. It might be as unorthodox as... |
**Natalie Pistunovich:** Cool. Alright, well, that was fun and interesting, and I hope this will bring to the workshop that will generate enough code that it will train the AI to do some OOPy Go. Thanks Ronna, thanks Ian, thanks everyone who joined. |
**Ronna Steinberg:** Thank you...! |
• Object-oriented programming languages |
• Discussion of what makes a language object-oriented |
• Comparison to other languages, specifically Java |
• Introduction to Shannon Skipper from Square, discussing the opportunity for developers to build apps for sellers on the Square platform |
• Square's Node SDK in TypeScript and its use cases |
• Go Time discussion about object-oriented design in Go |
• Interview with Rona about her workshop on object-oriented design in Go |
• Debate over whether Go can be considered an object-oriented programming language |
• Interview questions and answers suggesting people think Go is not OOP |
• Decision to give a workshop on using Go for OOP |
• Feedback from others after posting about the workshop, confirming interest in the topic |
• Discussion of resources supporting both sides of the debate |
• Multiple features of a programming language |
• Comparison with Java and other object-oriented languages |
• Limitations of single inheritance in Java and Ruby |
• Use of interfaces and generics as workarounds |
• Comparison with Go's approach to object-oriented design |
• Addressing concerns that Go is not object-oriented |
• Features missing in Go |
• Lack of object-oriented programming (OOP) features |
• Importance of hierarchy and composition in programming |
• Inheritance and its alternatives |
• Constructors and the lack thereof in Go |
• Difficulty in defining types and allowing modifications |
• Writing defensive code without constructors |
• Best practices vs common practices in coding |
• Challenges for developers new to Go language |
• Discussion on Go language being object-oriented or not |
• Mention of Go FAQs stating it's both yes and no |
• Explanation of how Go's interface concept provides a different approach to programming |
• Comparison with other languages like C++ and Java regarding type hierarchy and method definition |
• Reference to the lack of type hierarchy in Go making objects feel more lightweight |
• Discussion about whether Go is fully object-oriented |
• The importance of allowing users to decide their own best practices and creative approaches in programming |
• The need for a more open discussion among developers, with less influence from established "veterans" |
• Reference to Rob Pike's quote on object-oriented design, but inability to find the source |
• Design of APIs and handlers as functional programming |
• Use of interfaces in design, but often using functions as interface instead |
• Limited use of objects due to their ephemeral nature in certain contexts |
• Historical influence of language design on coding practices |
• Benefits of generics in storing models into databases or repositories |
• Honeycomb as a fast analysis tool for revealing application truths |
• Problems with traditional troubleshooting methods and tool sprawl |
• Benefits of using Honeycomb, including reduced context switching and improved understanding of production issues |
• Relationship between writing Go code and object-oriented programming (OOP) concepts |
• Reevaluating OOP ideas based on actual coding experience versus academic teaching. |
• Encapsulation and its relation to abstraction and generalization |
• The ability to encapsulate information without hierarchy or composition |
• Distributed systems and the need for aggregation of data |
• Interfaces and their role in defining abstractions |
• Generics/templates as a means to plug in functionality into something else |
• The use of generics/templates being unnecessary when encapsulation is present |
• C++ does not have interfaces but has classes with pure virtual functions |
• C++ cannot pass objects of a class that was not written by the user |
• Generics are needed for certain cases, such as working with derived types in a linked list or storing any kind of model in a repository |
• Maps are generic types and always require generics |
• Discussion about the generic maps and slices in programming |
• Connection between generic types and object-oriented programming (OOP) |
• Elimination of workarounds due to language maturity |
• Differences between Go and traditional OOP languages |
• Separation of data and behavior concepts in Go |
• Critique of oversimplification by focusing only on structs as classes |
• Discussion of whether Go is an object-oriented language |
• Comparison with other languages such as JavaScript and Java |
• Mention of a conversation with the speaker's boyfriend about object orientation in programming |
• Reference to Ron Pike's criticism of object-oriented programming on Wikipedia |
• Reflection on the concept of separating data from functionality as a key aspect of object-orientation |
• Criticism of object-oriented programming (OOP) for being heavy |
• Comparison to lightweight objects and natural-feeling code structure |
• Use of pseudocode with colors to make OOP more accessible |
• Teaching background and teaching interview preparation |
• Ability to express complex pseudocode without significant thought or coding effort |
• Red/black tree testing is problematic |
• Difficulty in coding a red/black tree without prior knowledge or googling |
• Importance of understanding edge cases in data structures |
• Need for a generic library to simplify working with complex data structures |
• Discussion on creating impossible tests for beginners and how to evaluate their skills |
• Strategies for assessing a candidate's proficiency, such as starting with basics and testing them on specific areas they claim expertise in |
• The speaker feels that hiring someone who cannot meet the high expectations of the team is unfair. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.