The Go programming language documentation makes a big deal about how it “reads from left to right.” Like, if you were describing the program in English, the elements of the Go program go in the same order as they would in English.
I say this as someone who likes Go as a language and writes more of it than any other language: I honestly don’t entirely follow. One example they give is how you specify a type that’s a “slice” (think “list” or “array” or whatever from other languages) of some other type. For instance a “slice of strings” would be written []string. The [] on the left means it’s a slice type. And string on the right specifies what it’s a slice of.
But does it really make less sense to say “a string slice”?
In Go, the type always comes after the variable name. A declaration might look like:
var a string
Similarly in function declarations:
funcbob(a string, b int, c float64) []string { ... }
Anyway, I guess all that to say I don’t mind the Go style, but I don’t fully understand the point of it being the way it is, and wouldn’t mind if it was the other way around either.
Edit: Oh, I might add that my brain will never use the term “a slice of bytes” for []byte. That will forever be “a byte slice” to me. I simply have no choice in the matter. Somehow my brain is much more ok with “a slice of strings”, though.
But does it really make less sense to say “a string slice”?
That’s an interesting point. You say “a pizza slice” or “a slice of pizza”, but you only say “a slice of bread”, not “a bread slice” (right? I’m not a native speaker).
Yeah, I think “a slice of bread” is a lot more common than “a bread slice”. Not to say I haven’t ever heard “a bread slice” used. I’m sure I have at least a few times. It would be pretty rare, however.
Though, I’m not sure “a pizza slice” is all that much more common. Maybe there are regions where it’s very common? Or maybe it’s more common in certain contexts? Like maybe sell-by-the-slice pizza places might tend to refer to “a pizza slice” rather than “a slice of pizza” when talking with coworkers? (That said, I’d imagine they’d just shorten it further to “a slice” since the “pizza” part would tend to be obvious in that case.)
Also, @eager_eagle@lemmy.world mentioned “water bottle”. I think if I hear “a water bottle” rather than “a bottle of water”, I’m probably going to assume it may or may not be an empty bottle intended for water rather than a bottle filled with water as “a bottle of water” would imply.
Way off the topic of programming, but linguistics is fascinating too!
Go’s syntax is vastly superior once you have more complicated signatures, then the left-to-right truly matters. For example a variable that contains a pointer to a function that takes a function and an int and returns another function (like a decorator).
In C the order becomes very hard to understand and you really have to read the thing several times to understand the type of fp:
int (*(*fp)(int (*)(int, int), int))(int, int)
In Go, you can just read from left to right and you can easily understand what f’s type is:
The Go programming language documentation makes a big deal about how it “reads from left to right.” Like, if you were describing the program in English, the elements of the Go program go in the same order as they would in English.
I say this as someone who likes Go as a language and writes more of it than any other language: I honestly don’t entirely follow. One example they give is how you specify a type that’s a “slice” (think “list” or “array” or whatever from other languages) of some other type. For instance a “slice of strings” would be written
[]string
. The[]
on the left means it’s a slice type. Andstring
on the right specifies what it’s a slice of.But does it really make less sense to say “a string slice”?
In Go, the type always comes after the variable name. A declaration might look like:
var a string
Similarly in function declarations:
func bob(a string, b int, c float64) []string { ... }
Anyway, I guess all that to say I don’t mind the Go style, but I don’t fully understand the point of it being the way it is, and wouldn’t mind if it was the other way around either.
Edit: Oh, I might add that my brain will never use the term “a slice of bytes” for
[]byte
. That will forever be “a byte slice” to me. I simply have no choice in the matter. Somehow my brain is much more ok with “a slice of strings”, though.That’s an interesting point. You say “a pizza slice” or “a slice of pizza”, but you only say “a slice of bread”, not “a bread slice” (right? I’m not a native speaker).
its makes more sense to say “a pizza slice”. using “of” in this way is from french.
personally, I’ve heard a lot more “bottle of water” than “water bottle” in the US
this “reads from left to right” really doesn’t hold up
Yeah, I think “a slice of bread” is a lot more common than “a bread slice”. Not to say I haven’t ever heard “a bread slice” used. I’m sure I have at least a few times. It would be pretty rare, however.
Though, I’m not sure “a pizza slice” is all that much more common. Maybe there are regions where it’s very common? Or maybe it’s more common in certain contexts? Like maybe sell-by-the-slice pizza places might tend to refer to “a pizza slice” rather than “a slice of pizza” when talking with coworkers? (That said, I’d imagine they’d just shorten it further to “a slice” since the “pizza” part would tend to be obvious in that case.)
Also, @eager_eagle@lemmy.world mentioned “water bottle”. I think if I hear “a water bottle” rather than “a bottle of water”, I’m probably going to assume it may or may not be an empty bottle intended for water rather than a bottle filled with water as “a bottle of water” would imply.
Way off the topic of programming, but linguistics is fascinating too!
Go’s syntax is vastly superior once you have more complicated signatures, then the left-to-right truly matters. For example a variable that contains a pointer to a function that takes a function and an int and returns another function (like a decorator).
In C the order becomes very hard to understand and you really have to read the thing several times to understand the type of fp:
int (*(*fp)(int (*)(int, int), int))(int, int)
In Go, you can just read from left to right and you can easily understand what f’s type is:
f func(func(int,int) int, int) func(int, int) int
It’s just much more readable.
See: https://go.dev/blog/declaration-syntax
If you actually use code like this you’re insane.