Sorry, wasn't my intention. But it's only 4 more lines. In my defense, I only showed three pages of C++, and not all of it, which would've been longer than the whole presentation. So I cut less from the Go snippets than the C++ snippets.
Your intention was to show the good Go code vs the bad C++ code. The different syntax highlighting colors and the missing error handling code really leave me feeling amiss.
My main gripe and reason for not jumping on the Go bandwagon is the error handling strategy, it was exactly what I wanted to see in the Go version.
Additionally, I think that this comparison would only be valid after the Go version experiences an equivalent amount of developer turnover, features added in a rush by developers inexperienced with the software, external infrastructure changes, and the other pressures that the C++ implementation was apparently subjected to over the years.
The Go code may look good in 2012 and 2013, while it's still fresh. But I'd be very curious to see how it looks in 2017 or 2018, assuming it's still even being used then.
Comments
Sorry, wasn't my intention. But it's only 4 more lines. In my defense, I only showed three pages of C++, and not all of it, which would've been longer than the whole presentation. So I cut less from the Go snippets than the C++ snippets.
Your intention was to show the good Go code vs the bad C++ code. The different syntax highlighting colors and the missing error handling code really leave me feeling amiss.
My main gripe and reason for not jumping on the Go bandwagon is the error handling strategy, it was exactly what I wanted to see in the Go version.
But thanks for the info anyhow.
Additionally, I think that this comparison would only be valid after the Go version experiences an equivalent amount of developer turnover, features added in a rush by developers inexperienced with the software, external infrastructure changes, and the other pressures that the C++ implementation was apparently subjected to over the years.
The Go code may look good in 2012 and 2013, while it's still fresh. But I'd be very curious to see how it looks in 2017 or 2018, assuming it's still even being used then.