• ddh@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    199
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    11 months ago

    As your future colleague wondering what the hell that variable is for, thanks Go.

    • Willem@kutsuya.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      64
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I prefer for it to be just a warning so I can debug without trouble, the build system will just prevent me from completing the pull request with it (and any other warning).

    • Nioxic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Isnt the syntax highlighting it as mever used?

      So why would they wonder?

      • Camilo@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        If it is a pure value, I’d assume yes, but if it is tied to a side effect (E.g. write its value to a file), then it would be not used but still could break your app if removed.

        I’m not familiar with rust language specifically, but generally that’s what could happen

    • ennemi [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      If only there was some way the compiler could detect unused variable declarations, and may be emit some sort of “warning”, which would be sort of like an “error”, but wouldn’t cause the build to fail, and could be treated as an error in CI pipelines

      • CoderKat@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Let’s not pretend people acknowledge warnings, though. It’s a popular meme that projects will have hundreds of warnings and that devs will ignore them all.

        There’s a perfectly valid use case for opinionated languages that don’t let you get away with that. It’s also similar to how go has gofmt to enforce a consistent formatting.

        Honestly, I’ve been using Go for years and this unused variable error rarely comes up. When it does, it’s trivial to resolve. But the error has saved me from bugs more often than it has wasted my time. Most commonly when you declare a new variable in a narrower scope when you intended to assign to the variable of the same name (since Go has separate declare vs assign operators).

        • ennemi [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          You can, if you want, opt into warnings causing your build to fail. This is commonly done in larger projects. If your merge request builds with warnings, it does not get merged.

          In other words, it’s not a bad idea to want to flag unused variables and prevent them from ending up in source control. It’s a bad idea for the compiler to also pretend it’s a linter, and for this behaviour to be forced on, which ironically breaks the Unix philosophy principle of doing one thing and doing it well.

          Mind you, this is an extremely minor pain point, but frankly this is like most Go design choices wherein the idea isn’t bad, but there exists a much better way to solve the problem.

      • iammike@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        Some people simply ignore warnings, that’s the main issue. Trust me, I saw this way too often.

        If you cannot compile it than you have to fix it, otherwise just mark unused variables as ‘not an error’ via _ = someunusedvar.

    • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      11 months ago

      IDK, Brainfuck is still classified as a programming language and Go is not that far behind it.

  • CodeBlooded@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    103
    arrow-down
    59
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    If this language feature is annoying to you, you are the problem. You 👏are 👏 the 👏 reason 👏 it 👏 exists.

    I worked in places where the developers loaded their code full of unused variables and dead code. It costs a lot of time reasoning about it during pull request and it costs a lot of time arguing with coworkers who swear that they’re going to need that code in there next week (they never need that code).

    This is a very attractive feature for a programming language in my opinion.

    PS: I’m still denying your pull request if you try to comment the code instead.

    ❗️EDIT: A lot of y’all have never been to programming hell and it shows. 🪖 I’m telling you, I’ve fixed bayonets in the trenches of dynamically typed Python, I’ve braved the rice paddies of CICD YAML mines, I’ve queried alongside SQL Team Six; I’ve seen things in production, things you’ll probably never see… things you should never see. It’s easy to be against an opinionated compiler having such a feature, but when you watch a prod deployment blow up on a Friday afternoon without an easy option to rollback AND hours later you find the bug after you were stalled by dead code, it changes you. Then… then you start to appreciate opinionated features like this one. 🫡

    • m_f@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      85
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 months ago

      That’s 👏 what 👏 CI 👏 is 👏 for

      Warn in dev, enforce stuff like this in CI and block PRs that don’t pass. Go is just being silly here, which is not surprising given that Rob Pike said

      Syntax highlighting is juvenile. When I was a child, I was taught arithmetic using colored rods. I grew up and today I use monochromatic numerals.

      The Go developers need to get over themselves.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yeah, insisting on things like a variable being used will result in people using work arounds. It won’t result in people not doing it.

        Then, because people trust the language to police this rule, the work-arounds and debug code will get committed.

        func main() {  
            test := true  
        }  
        

        Oops, golang doesn’t like that.

        func main() {  
            test := true  
            _ = test  
        }
        

        Perfectly cromulent code.

        If they really wanted to avoid people having unused variables, they should have used a naming convention. Any variable not prefixed by “_” or “_debug_” or whatever has to be used, for example. Then block any code being checked in that still contains those markers.

      • WhyEssEff [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        11 months ago

        reading my code after being up for 18 hours and having my eyes glaze over trying to parse the structure of my monochromatic code but then I remember Rob Pike said syntax highlighting is juvenile so I throw my head against that wall for another 3 hours

        • WhyEssEff [she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Prescription glasses are juvenile. When I was a child, I was prescribed visual aid to help my nearsightedness. I grew up and today I raw-dog the road.

      • spookedbyroaches@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        I agree that golang is being dumb when you don’t even have the option to tell it that this is a testing env or something. But the thing about syntax highlighting is not the same. One is about handholding the developer so much that it makes it even more difficult to develop, and the other is a completely optional feature that is so uselful and non intrusive that even wizardly editors like emacs use it.

      • FlumPHP@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        What’s a situation where you need an unused variable? I’m onboard with go and goland being a bit aggressive with this type of thing, but I can’t think of the case where I need to be able to commit an unused variable.

        • m_f@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          You probably wouldn’t be committing this, unless you’re backing up a heavily WIP branch. The issue is that if you’re developing locally and need to make a temporary change, you might comment something out, which then requires commenting another now-unused variable, which then requires commenting out yet another variable, and so on. Go isn’t helping you here, it’s wasting your time for no good reason. Just emit a warning and allow CI to be configured to reject warnings.

        • hare_ware@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I will need it two minutes tops. If I don’t use it by then, I’ll delete it, especially if it gives a warning like Rust does. But this? It just gets in the way.

        • jormaig@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          11 months ago

          Have you looked at the post? Use case: you are testing something or playing around and you want to try something. That’s supper common

        • ggppjj@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          I have a use case in Powershell: my company has a number of scripts that are minimally but importantly customized per-location, and I have an otherwise unused “SiteId” variable where I keep the location name for that specific script for a quick sanity check when I’m looking them over for any reason. Not necessary, but useful to me. Probably wouldn’t do the same thing in a compiled program, but I can at least see where someone might want something similar.

    • Urik@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      59
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      That’s a problem with your workplace, not the language nor OP.
      You could have a build setting for personal development where unused variables are not checked, and then a build setting for your CI system that will look for them. It gives you freedom to develop the way you want without being annoyed when you remove something just to test something, but will not merge your PR unless the stricter rules are met.

      • CodeBlooded@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        I concur, it is a problem with that workplace. (In this case, OP is just sharing a funny meme. I wouldn’t suggest this meme means they’re a problem. I could have made this meme and I love the feature.)

        Developing on a team at a company is like the “Wild West.” What’s considered to be acceptable will not only vary from workplace to workplace, but it can also fluctuate as developers and managers come and Go. Each of them have their own unique personality with their own outlook on what “quality” code looks like. (And many of them do not care about code quality whatsoever. They just need to survive 1-2 years there, make management happy with speedy deliveries, and then they can move on to the next company with a 30% pay bump.)

        Having experienced working with developers who frequently filled with code base with unused code while having no control over who will leave or join as a contributor to the code base, I think features like this make for a more sane development experience when you’re developing with a team of seemingly random people that you never personally invited to contribute to the code base.

        will not merge your PR unless the stricter rules are met.

        This doesn’t fly when you work in big corporate and the boss doesn’t care about the code meeting stricter rules. “A working prototype? No it’s not- that’s an MVP! Deploy it to production now and move onto the next project!

      • LittleLordLimerick@lemm.ee
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        11 months ago

        Why in the world would you want to develop something that doesn’t follow the coding rules required by your org, just so you can go back and fix everything before submitting a PR? That’s just extra work.

        • planish@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Because you want to know if the first half of the code works at all before you write the whole second half.

          Finding all the bits that will be used by the second half and changing the declarations to just expressions is a bunch of extra work. As is adding placeholder code to use the declared variables.

          • LittleLordLimerick@lemm.ee
            cake
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            I’m having a hard time envisioning a situation where testing my code requires a bunch of unused variables. Just don’t declare the variables until you’ve started writing the code that uses them…

            • Urik@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Most of the time you don’t write the code, you change it.

              I had tons of situations where I wanted to test deleting a code block which just happened to use an imported library, which the compiler is now complaining about because it’s no longer being used.

              • LittleLordLimerick@lemm.ee
                cake
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                If that’s the problem, then I would just use something like goimports to auto fix the imports every time I hit save. I never even see those errors so they don’t bother me.

    • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      That’s what warnings are for. The jokes about programmers ignoring warnings are outdated - we live in an age where CIs run linters and style checkers on pull requests, there is no reason for a CI to not automatically reject code that builds with warnings.

    • pixeltree@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      11 months ago

      I mean, yeah that kind of stuff absolutely should not be in production. However, it’s easy to see how it could be annoying while testing something while working on it. It being annoying doesn’t make it a bad feature, just as finding it annoying doesn’t make you a problem imo.

      • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        It is VERY annoying when you’re hunting for a bug. For example, when you comment out a function call to debug an issue, the compiler might suddenly complains about unused variables, so you’ll need to comment them out as well. Repeat several times and you’ll start having an urge to smack the monitor.

    • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      It costs a lot of time reasoning about it during pull request and it costs a lot of time arguing with coworkers who swear that they’re going to need that code in there next week (they never need that code).

      You should go to your team leader and ask them to enforce a coding standard. I agree with other commenters that said this should be a warning instead of an error.

    • fibojoly@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      11 months ago

      I was working for a team that did quality control on the code of an entire financial group and it’s still amazing to me the shit we let through.
      I feel annoyed even having compiler warnings in my code and here we were downgrading errors into warnings so the code would go through, or adding rules exceptions for a program so the team responsible could push a hotfix to prod… It’s all shit. All the way down.

      I dream of working with such a strict language.

      • Nato Boram@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        “Other people” are what’s wrong with me. People don’t use linters/formatters/type annotations when it’s optional and produce dogshite code as a result. Having the compiler itself enforce some level of human decency is a godsend.

  • ytrav@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    lints that underline unused vars as errors, and not notes or warns are the worst lints…

  • fkn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    43
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    11 months ago

    Also Go: exceptions aren’t real, you declare and handle every error at every level or declare that you might return that error because go fuck yourself.

      • r1veRRR@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        It’s better than “invisible” exceptions, but it’s still the worst “better” version. The best solution is some version of the good old Result monad. Rust has the BEST error handling (at least in the languages i know). You must handle Errors, BUT they are just values, AND there’s a easy, non-verbose way of passing on the error (the ? operator).

        • theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Beyond a quick “hello world” when it came out, I’ve never used rust, but that sounds pretty great

      • fkn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        11 months ago

        Wow. I’m honestly surprised I’m getting downvotes for a joke. Also, no. It isn’t. It really isn’t.

        • gornius@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          It is better than in most languages with exceptions, except from languages like Java, that require you to declare that certain method throws certain error.

          It’s more tedious in Go, but at the end of the day it’s the same thing.

          When I use someone else’s code I want to be sure if that thing can throw an error so I can decide what to do with it.

          • fkn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Java doesn’t have to declare every error at every level… Go is significantly more tedious and verbose than any other common language (for errors). I found it leads to less specific errors and errors handled at weird levels in the stack.

      • herrvogel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        There’s nothing sane and readable about how Go insists you format dates and time. It is one of the dumbest language features I’ve ever seen.

  • jeanma@lemmy.ninja
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    OP never said he/she commits such code but wants to iterate, test, explore.

    Of course, unused var should not be part of a commit.

  • fauxerious@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    11 months ago

    you can assign it to itself and it’ll be just fine. can’t put a breakpoint right on it, but it works

  • Rednax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    11 months ago

    I hate this in C++ when it does this with parameters of an overidden function. I don’t need that specific parameter, but if I omit the variable name, I reduce readability.

  • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    11 months ago

    The best part of these threads is no matter what someone comments, at least 2 people will reply either correcting or “clarifying” the original commenter.

    Lol