The reason is simply that good syntax is a really hard problem which
incorporates both tech and people.
In principle, you can get away with very few things in a language before it
is turing complete. It is enough to have eg 'WHILE <cond> do <stmts>' where
stmts can form a block of statements. Or just have recursion, in which case
you need no looping construct at all.
In practice, convenience has it that people often add additional syntax,
albeit it seems to me that imperative languages generally have opted on the
side of having multiple loop constructs, whereas the functional side has
done away with recursion, more or less. This is mostly a stylistic argument
as things blend in the end: most modern compilers use SSA, which can be
seen as a variant of implementing all loops as recursion. And vice versa,
recursion is often implemented via tail call optimization: which implements
a loop as a goto. It is just dependent on the glasses you wear, really.
What is really going on is that you strike a delicate balance by adding
more syntax:
* Is the new construct going to be able to convey information (Ian's
if/switch example - they are often used differently, which makes the reader
know what follows).
* Is the new construct going to add cognitive load on readers?
* Is the new construct going to make it harder to learn the language as
there are more information to take in?
* Will the new construct add considerable expressive power in the form of a
more succinct style?
* Will it introduce a new class of common errors in programs?
* Will the new construct interfere with existing syntactical groups in ways
that makes the program harder to understand?
* Will the semantics be clear? Will it take readers longer time to grasp
what is going on?
* Is it backwards compatible? How many code bases will it affect?
People will not answer these questions the same, so a good solution must
attempt the impossible, which is to cater to everyone's desires. This is
why it is so hard to change syntax. It is also why one must accept a
compromise: you can't have everything you want in a language, and you have
to make certain sacrifices along the way. But it is still fair if people
write to look for support for their preferences. Perhaps not in Go, but
then another language might cater to you more and also pick up the
suggestions.
do { ... } while <cond> is the only construct I some times miss, but then
again, it occurs fairly rarely in my code, so for now I'm rather happy to
just rewrite it in another style.
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 3:46 PM <prades.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can anybody point me to a single discussion on golang-nuts that led to a
> significant syntax change? These threads are akin to bike shedding thus a
> waste of time.
>
> Adding while provide nothing of value in a language that supports basic
> looping. And for those who compare if and switch arguing it is equivalent,
> you can't do type switches with an if statement.
>
> This is discussion is going nowhere.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "golang-nuts" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
