Golang: Where Joy Meets Jank

4/19/2024

I have a confession—one that I’ve been harboring ever since I wrote my first “Hello, world” in Go. Namely, that I love this language. Love as in, can’t-help-but-fawn-over-it level adoration, for all its straightforward syntax, lightning-fast compilation, and cheery concurrency model. And yet, as with any steamy affair, there are all these subtle issues lurking in the background, ready to break my heart at any moment¹. There’s a part of me that wants to wave a gigantic neon sign at the language designers—something along the lines of, “Your type system is stuck in the ’80s, and half your APIs are so half-baked they’re practically raw.” But I keep coding, because at the end of the day, it works. Or it does, until it doesn’t.

The Go Productivity Dream: Compile Fast, Iterate Faster

The first seduction of Go is this: you can churn out functional, readable programs with astonishing speed. It’s reminiscent of that feeling you get when you discover a new city’s neatly laid-out streets and realize you can navigate them without constantly referencing Google Maps. In a typical dev cycle, I write a snippet, run go build, see instant results, and I’m back coding again. It’s a dopamine hit.

Simple Syntax, Minimal Ceremony

Go aggressively pares down the ceremony. There’s no labyrinth of class hierarchies, no elaborate configuration file, no generics (well, we’ll get there in a minute²). You import your packages, define some functions, and off you go. The language’s simplicity is also its biggest selling point—like a grand old oak table, sturdy and dependable, without intricate carvings or inlays to distract you.

Concurrency: The Goroutine Glamour

Of course, the real siren song is goroutines. “Look, you can just slap a go keyword in front of a function call, and poof, it runs concurrently.” Your code becomes an elegant(ish) tapestry of channels and concurrency patterns that might evoke that Zen-like state all productivity geeks crave. It’s a revelation: concurrency doesn’t have to be a PhD-level dissertation on locks and semaphores. Instead, it’s something you casually sprinkle in, like seasoning on your code stew.

But—and here’s where the trouble starts—this concurrency model can be beguilingly simplistic. When it just works, you feel unstoppable. When it doesn’t, you end up with production nightmares so elaborate they make your average concurrency fiasco look quaint³.

The Type System That Time Forgot

Let’s talk about the type system. Or rather, let’s lament it. Go’s type system sometimes feels as if it was lovingly teleported from 1985, with a few modern sprinkles halfheartedly thrown in around 2022⁴. Yes, Go has generics now—finally—but the road to generics was so protracted, so fraught, it’s like the language designers forgot a few relevant leaps in type theory that happened in the last four decades.

Let’s Keep It Simple, Maybe Too Simple

The original design principle was “simplicity over everything.” Great, I respect the ethos. But if we’re being honest, it’s led to some jarring contortions. You need a more expressive type boundary? Sorry, we’re playing it safe. Want a robust trait system or advanced pattern matching? Not here, buddy—this is Go, we keep it old-school. That’s either refreshingly minimalist or maddeningly archaic, depending on the day.

Underdone Generics, Etc.

When generics landed, many rejoiced—some danced in the streets, figuratively speaking—but we quickly realized this was a cautious first pass. A decent step, yes, but incomplete in all sorts of ways. If you’re used to, say, Rust’s or Scala’s type-level wizardry, you might do a double-take: “Wait, that’s all we get?” Because as you start designing more sophisticated data structures, you realize Go is still, at its core, that amiable minimalism—and minimalism does not always play nice with advanced type concepts.

The API Oddities: Windows and Beyond

If the type system drama weren’t enough, let’s talk about Go’s standard library. Don’t get me wrong: the standard library is robust in principle. But once you wander into certain corners—like Windows-specific functionality—you realize it’s a patchwork. The cross-platform dream occasionally crumbles when you see that certain calls are either half-implemented or absent on Windows⁵.

The “It Works for Unix” Phenomenon

Go was famously minted at Google, where “just use Linux” might as well be a company mantra. So inevitably, the standard library’s coverage of Unix-y things is strong, while the Windows side can feel neglected. That might be fine if you’re never building for Windows servers or dealing with customers on that OS. But if you do, brace for some wincing.

The “Is This Really the Standard Library?” Surprises

And let’s not forget the occasional half-baked corner in the standard packages themselves. The worst offenders are those that look polished and documented but harbor bizarre edge cases (especially once you throw concurrency into the mix). You might be cruising along, thinking Go’s standard library is your best friend, when suddenly you discover it doesn’t quite handle your scenario, or it triggers an exotic runtime bug that no one’s patched yet.

Goroutines: The Magic and the Meltdowns

I need to come back to goroutines, because they’re the beating heart of Go’s concurrency hype and also the biggest thorn in production environments. I still recall the first time I wrote a quick worker pool with goroutines and channels; I felt unstoppable, like I’d discovered a secret cheat code for concurrency. No more clunky thread pools or weird library calls—just go func() {…}, and done.

The Joy of “Magic”…

You come to rely on that ephemeral magic. The runtime decides how many OS threads to use, manages scheduling, and spawns new goroutines with barely any overhead. You can spin up thousands of them. It’s wonderful—until you start pushing your app in production at scale.

…And the Despair When It Breaks

Then, inevitably, you hit an inexplicable memory leak or a scheduling quirk that leads to weird lockups. You open up your logs and see cryptic stack traces that basically say “goroutine #4,582,192: blocked forever.” At that point, you realize you have no direct control over how the runtime is orchestrating your concurrency. The behind-the-scenes magic is so integral to Go’s design that when it fails or encounters corner cases, you can’t just manually tweak a thread pool or a scheduler param. You’re basically at the mercy of that runtime.

That’s the trade-off: Go’s concurrency model is joyously easy to adopt but can bite you hard if you need deeper fine-tuning or post-mortem debugging. I’ve seen production incidents where goroutine scheduling anomalies caused meltdown-level issues, and “fixing” them meant rewriting the concurrency logic in a more explicit, less “Go-ish” manner. Talk about heartbreak.

It’s Great, Until It Isn’t

So am I saying Go is a bad language? Far from it. I still write it daily because, for most tasks, it’s a sweet spot of speed, clarity, and easy concurrency. The community is robust, the tooling is chef’s kiss, and it’s just plain fun to write. But we can’t pretend the type system’s outdated, or the standard library’s quirks, or the “goroutines as magic” model isn’t sometimes a powder keg waiting to blow.

The Crescendo of Joy

When it works, it’s golden. You bang out APIs, compile in seconds, run some tests, deploy, and watch your service hum along at remarkable performance levels. Everything is sunshine, and you feel like the ephemeral saint of minimalistic concurrency.

The Inevitable Crash

But then something breaks in a corner of the Go runtime you can’t easily poke at, or you realize you need a feature from modern type systems that simply doesn’t exist here, or you’re debugging a weird Windows bug that only affects your CLI tool⁶. Suddenly, that sunshine dims. You curse the short-sighted design decisions, grumble about 1980s-era type philosophies, and vow to switch to Rust or something with a more advanced type system—only to be lured back in by Go’s sweet siren of productivity.

Conclusion: Living with a Love/Hate Relationship

Ultimately, Go is a delightfully contradictory beast. On the one hand, it’s a beacon of clarity in a sea of languages that can get bogged down by complexity. On the other, it’s hopelessly mired in certain design choices that feel a generation behind. The concurrency model is both its greatest strength and its Achilles’ heel, because it’s built on a bed of “magic” that you can’t fully control.

So yes, I love Go. I love how fast I can develop real, production-ready services. But I also love to gripe about how I can’t fix the goroutine scheduling meltdown in production or tweak the half-baked Windows APIs. Maybe that’s the sign of a truly great language: you can’t stop coding in it, even when it causes you to tear your hair out from time to time⁷.

¹ Picture Romeo and Juliet, but with more dependency injection and stack traces.
² At long last, generics arrived—yet somewhat minimal, like a first draft with the promise of more to come.
³ I’ve stared at concurrency-laced stack traces that I wouldn’t inflict on my worst enemy.
⁴ Each new release addresses some aspect, but we’re still grappling with the relics of prior simplicity.
⁵ And that’s me being polite. The reality can be downright exasperating.
⁶ Something that I personally spend more time than average doing.
⁷ See also, why I love TypeScript and will argue with no trace of irony that it is the best programming language ever created.

← Read more articles

Comments

No comments yet.