Golang

0 readers

1 users here now

This is a community dedicated to the go programming language.

Useful Links:

Rules:

Posts must be relevant to Go
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Try to keep discussions on topic
No spam of tools/companies/advertisements
It’s OK to post your own stuff part of the time, but the primary use of the community should not be self-promotion.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Ategon@programming.dev

austin@programming.dev

RandomDevOpsDude@programming.dev

Backward Compatibility, Go 1.21, and Go 2 (go.dev)

submitted 1 year ago by tedu@azorius.net to c/golang@programming.dev

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Boring is good. Boring is stable. Boring means being able to focus on your work, not on what’s different about Go. This post is about the important work we shipped in Go 1.21 to keep Go boring.

There will not be a Go 2 that breaks Go 1 programs. Instead, we are going to double down on compatibility, which is far more valuable than any possible break with the past. In fact, we believe that prioritizing compatibility was the most important design decision we made for Go 1.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] nebiros@programming.dev 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Choose Boring Technology 🫶

[–] koalalorenzo@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Would you consider Go as boring technology? 🤔 sometimes I feel that its simplicity gives less unknown unknowns, and more "boring".

[–] nebiros@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago

well, boring tech link is about battle tested tech, not about hype, so, in that sense, yeah, seems “boring” to me, but I love it, :)