Datasets:
willtheorangeguy
/
2022-Go-Time-Transcripts

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
 Community
text
stringlengths
0
2.35k
[593.42 --> 594.48] because it lacks inheritance?
[594.68 --> 594.80] Like,
[594.84 --> 595.86] what features are missing
[595.86 --> 596.72] that people are like,
[596.76 --> 597.88] it's not object-oriented?
[598.20 --> 599.44] I think it's about
[599.44 --> 600.12] the styling.
[600.12 --> 600.52] So,
[600.62 --> 600.88] yes,
[601.02 --> 602.50] most people talk about
[602.50 --> 603.48] the lack of hierarchy,
[604.24 --> 606.46] the composition over,
[607.08 --> 607.42] what's the word
[607.42 --> 607.98] I'm looking for?
[608.54 --> 608.98] Inheritance?
[609.52 --> 610.10] I guess.
[610.36 --> 610.70] I mean,
[610.86 --> 611.82] I think there is a,
[611.84 --> 612.20] like,
[612.28 --> 613.50] general term for inheritance,
[613.64 --> 613.92] but yeah.
[614.40 --> 614.66] Okay.
[614.82 --> 616.10] I think it's about,
[617.06 --> 618.12] I think people do a lot
[618.12 --> 619.60] of procedural coding with Go.
[619.90 --> 621.06] You don't have constructors,
[621.16 --> 621.64] for instance,
[621.72 --> 621.96] right?
[622.44 --> 624.12] And why do you not have constructors?
[624.16 --> 625.54] Because anything can be a type.
[625.88 --> 627.32] An integer can be a new type.
[627.40 --> 628.64] You can define a new type
[628.64 --> 629.34] with pretty much
[629.34 --> 630.74] in any way that you want.
[631.30 --> 631.50] So,
[631.56 --> 632.64] you don't really have constructors
[632.64 --> 633.66] because you don't have classes
[633.66 --> 635.22] and anything can be a type.
[635.58 --> 636.96] And then everything can have
[636.96 --> 637.78] also methods.
[638.54 --> 638.98] But,
[639.06 --> 640.10] the truth is that
[640.10 --> 641.62] without constructors,
[642.00 --> 642.64] without a sort of
[642.64 --> 643.70] a formal way
[643.70 --> 645.08] of working,
[645.20 --> 645.44] I think,
[645.50 --> 646.24] with objects,
[646.94 --> 647.82] people get lost.
[648.52 --> 649.02] And then,
[649.10 --> 649.42] you know,
[649.56 --> 650.62] they look down at people
[650.62 --> 652.02] who come in from other languages
[652.02 --> 654.98] who need these things.
[655.58 --> 656.54] It is very difficult
[656.54 --> 658.22] to define a type
[658.22 --> 659.62] and allow anybody
[659.62 --> 660.60] to make any changes.
[660.60 --> 660.80] So,
[660.88 --> 662.02] you cannot really tell.
[662.50 --> 663.22] How do you tell
[663.22 --> 664.44] if it's corrupt or not?
[664.72 --> 665.28] How do you write
[665.28 --> 666.80] any kind of defensive code
[666.80 --> 667.70] in that situation?
[668.34 --> 669.54] We also have these,
[669.58 --> 669.78] you know,
[669.88 --> 670.38] best practices.
[670.50 --> 670.66] I mean,
[670.98 --> 671.92] I don't like the word
[671.92 --> 672.66] best practices
[672.66 --> 674.18] because I think that
[674.18 --> 675.74] I usually use the word
[675.74 --> 676.62] common practice
[676.62 --> 677.46] to explain
[677.46 --> 679.38] because it's not always best,
[679.46 --> 679.62] right?
[679.66 --> 680.20] There's a case
[680.20 --> 681.24] for pretty much anything.
[681.74 --> 683.00] But the common practices
[683.00 --> 684.40] are everything is public.
[684.64 --> 685.74] Anyone can do anything
[685.74 --> 686.38] with the guy
[686.38 --> 687.16] and if they don't read
[687.16 --> 687.88] the documentation,
[688.06 --> 688.36] tough.
[688.96 --> 689.40] So,
[690.20 --> 691.32] it is a bit tricky
[691.32 --> 692.24] for people coming
[692.24 --> 692.96] into the language
[692.96 --> 693.96] to know exactly
[693.96 --> 694.66] what they're supposed
[694.66 --> 695.46] to do and how.
[696.18 --> 696.84] And in that sense,
[696.88 --> 697.54] we're not making
[697.54 --> 698.34] their lives easier.
[698.76 --> 699.78] We're just making it harder
[699.78 --> 700.54] instead of doing
[700.54 --> 701.20] this gatekeeping.
[701.30 --> 701.66] Oh, no,