Sorry, where's the part where I complained that the language is broken? I said that Go doesn't protect you from mutating shared state across multiple concurrent goroutines. Not a very controversial statement, that.
But how does Go’s approach to concurrency fare when viewed through the lens of encouraging code that supports local reasoning? Not very well, I’m afraid. Goroutines all have access to the same shared memory space
The article is flawed because you:
1. Base it on Go failing to protect you, when in actually you fail to use any of Gos "very useful concurrency primitives baked right into the language"
2. When you choose to use these primitives you choose the the wrong primitive that results in a much more verbose and complex solution then is necessary.
It would have been much better had you:
1. Showed why the solution with no protection is unsafe (and mention its unsafe in just about any mainstream language)
2. Show a mutuex solution
3. Show a channel based solution
When it comes to protecting a structs state, in most Go code (including the standard library) RW/Mutexes are the "go to" synchronization primitive. Channels are more commonly used for communication between longer running goroutines.
Snark aside, I added a bit to clarify that the first example is contrived, implemented as such for illustrative purposes, and a mutex would actually be a better choice in the trivial case.
I would have understood snarking at my original (admittedly somewhat snarky) comment. I'm not sure why you felt the need to snark at my constructive criticism, which you actually took-
It's maybe a bit silly having a conversation about tone on Hacker News, but generally people tend to respond better when you don't state opinions, especially critical ones, as though they're fact. See "The article is flawed because you..." and "It would have been much better had you..." I statements FTW.
I don't think the original version was particularly flawed, and your description of why you think it was doesn't make a lot of sense to me. But I added a note anyway to make it clear that I do in fact know about the alternative approaches, and that I made the choices I made deliberately and not out of ignorance.
Regardless, I appreciate you taking the time to read it, and to give your feedback. Cheers.
