The author argues that Go channels, while conceptually appealing, often lead to overly complex and difficult-to-debug code in real-world scenarios. They contend that the implicit blocking nature of channels introduces subtle dependencies and makes it hard to reason about program flow, especially in larger projects. Error handling becomes cumbersome, requiring verbose boilerplate and leading to convoluted control structures. Ultimately, the post suggests that callbacks, despite their perceived drawbacks, offer a more straightforward and manageable approach to concurrency, particularly when dealing with complex interactions and error propagation. While channels might be suitable for simple use cases, their limitations become apparent as complexity increases, leading to code that is harder to understand, maintain, and debug.
Dbushell's blog post "Et Tu, Grammarly?" criticizes Grammarly's tone detector for flagging neutral phrasing as overly negative or uncertain. He provides examples where simple, straightforward sentences are deemed problematic, arguing that the tool pushes users towards an excessively positive and verbose style, ultimately hindering clear communication. This, he suggests, reflects a broader trend of AI writing tools prioritizing a specific, and potentially undesirable, writing style over actual clarity and conciseness. He worries this reinforces corporate jargon and ultimately diminishes the quality of writing.
HN commenters largely agree with the author's criticism of Grammarly's aggressive upselling and intrusive UI. Several users share similar experiences of frustration with the constant prompts to upgrade, even after dismissing them. Some suggest alternative grammar checkers like LanguageTool and ProWritingAid, praising their less intrusive nature and comparable functionality. A few commenters point out that Grammarly's business model necessitates these tactics, while others discuss the potential negative impact on user experience and writing flow. One commenter mentions the irony of Grammarly's own grammatical errors in their marketing materials, further fueling the sentiment against the company's practices. The overall consensus is that Grammarly's usefulness is overshadowed by its annoying and disruptive upselling strategy.
Louis Rossmann criticizes Mozilla's handling of the Firefox browser, arguing they've prioritized telemetry and user tracking over performance and essential features. He points to the declining market share as evidence of their mismanagement and expresses frustration with the browser's increasing bloat and sluggishness. Rossmann believes Mozilla has lost sight of its original mission of providing a fast, open-source alternative to dominant browsers and is instead chasing trends that don't benefit users. He contrasts this with the Pale Moon browser, highlighting its focus on performance and customization as a better embodiment of Firefox's original values.
The Hacker News comments discuss Louis Rossmann's video about Firefox's declining market share. Several commenters agree with Rossmann's assessment that Mozilla has lost focus on its core user base by prioritizing features that don't resonate with power users and developers. Some point to specific examples like the removal of XUL extensions and the perceived bloat of the browser. Others argue that Firefox's decline is inevitable due to the dominance of Chrome and the network effects of Google's ecosystem. A few commenters defend Mozilla's decisions, suggesting they're trying to appeal to a broader audience. The discussion also touches on the difficulty of competing with a resource-rich giant like Google and the importance of open-source alternatives. Several users express nostalgia for Firefox's past dominance and lament its current state.
In a 2014 Dezeen article, Justin McGuirk reflects on William Gibson's observation that burgeoning subcultures are rapidly commodified, losing their subversive potential before they fully form. McGuirk uses the example of a sanitized, commercialized "punk" aesthetic appearing in London shops, devoid of the original movement's anti-establishment ethos. He argues that the internet, with its instant communication and trend-spotting, accelerates this process. Essentially, the very act of identifying and labeling a subculture makes it vulnerable to appropriation by mainstream culture, transforming rebellion into a marketable product.
HN users generally agree with Gibson's observation about the rapid commodification of subcultures. Several commenters attribute this to the internet and social media, allowing trends to spread and be exploited much faster than in the past. Some argue that genuine subcultures still exist, but are more fragmented and harder to find. One commenter suggests commodification might not always be negative, as it can provide access to niche interests while another points out the cyclical nature of trends, with mainstream adoption often leading to subcultures moving underground and reinventing themselves. A few lament the loss of authenticity this process creates.
The author details a frustrating experience with GitHub Actions where a seemingly simple workflow to build and deploy a static website became incredibly complex and time-consuming due to caching issues. Despite attempting various caching strategies and workarounds, builds remained slow and unpredictable, ultimately leading to increased costs and wasted developer time. The author concludes that while GitHub Actions might be suitable for straightforward tasks, its caching mechanism's unreliability makes it a poor choice for more complex projects, especially those involving static site generation. They ultimately opted to migrate to a self-hosted solution for improved control and predictability.
Hacker News users generally agreed with the author's sentiment about GitHub Actions' complexity and unreliability. Many shared similar experiences with flaky builds, obscure error messages, and difficulty debugging. Several commenters suggested exploring alternatives like GitLab CI, Drone CI, or self-hosted runners for more control and predictability. Some pointed out the benefits of GitHub Actions, such as its tight integration with GitHub and the availability of pre-built actions, but acknowledged the frustrations raised in the article. The discussion also touched upon the trade-offs between convenience and control when choosing a CI/CD solution, with some arguing that the ease of use initially offered by GitHub Actions can be overshadowed by the difficulties encountered as projects grow more complex. A few users offered specific troubleshooting tips or workarounds for common issues, highlighting the community-driven nature of problem-solving around GitHub Actions.
Summary of Comments ( 67 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43670373
HN commenters largely disagree with the article's premise. Several point out that the author's examples are contrived and misuse channels, leading to unnecessary complexity. They argue that channels are a powerful tool for concurrency when used correctly, offering simplicity and efficiency in many common scenarios. Some suggest the author's preferred approach of callbacks and mutexes is more error-prone and less readable. A few commenters mention the learning curve associated with channels but acknowledge their benefits once mastered. Others highlight the importance of understanding the appropriate use cases for channels, conceding they aren't a universal solution for every concurrency problem.
The Hacker News post "Go channels are bad (2016)" has generated a substantial discussion with a variety of viewpoints on the use of channels in Go. Several commenters challenge the author's premise, arguing that the issues presented stem from misapplication of channels rather than inherent flaws.
One recurring theme is the critique of the author's examples. Commenters point out that the use of unbuffered channels for signaling across goroutines, as demonstrated in the article, is often an anti-pattern. They suggest buffered channels or alternative synchronization mechanisms like
sync.WaitGroupwould be more appropriate for the scenarios presented. This challenges the author's claim that channels inherently lead to complex and error-prone code.Some commenters highlight the importance of context and experience when using channels. They acknowledge that channels can be misused, leading to the problems described in the article, but argue that with proper understanding, channels are a powerful tool for concurrency management. The idea that channels are "bad" is therefore considered an oversimplification.
Another line of discussion revolves around the comparison between channels and other concurrency models. Some commenters mention callbacks and promises as alternatives, but acknowledge the benefits of channels in terms of structuring concurrent code and avoiding callback hell. The discussion explores the trade-offs between different approaches and highlights the strengths of channels in specific scenarios.
Several commenters defend the use of channels, citing their effectiveness in building robust and concurrent systems. They argue that the issues raised in the article can be avoided with good design practices and a proper understanding of how channels work. They point to real-world projects where channels have proven to be a valuable asset for concurrency management.
The concept of "mechanical sympathy" is also brought up, suggesting that developers should understand the underlying mechanics of channels to use them effectively. This reinforces the idea that the problems highlighted in the article are likely due to misuse rather than inherent flaws in the concept of channels.
Overall, the comments section presents a balanced perspective. While acknowledging the potential pitfalls of using channels incorrectly, many commenters argue that the author's conclusion is overly negative and that channels remain a powerful tool for concurrent programming in Go when used correctly. The discussion provides valuable insights into best practices and common misconceptions surrounding the use of Go channels.