filter VS meson

Here’s Rob Pike’s (one of the original Go designers) attempt to “see what the hubbub is all about”: https://github.com/robpike/filter

I find the language really solid but asking on r/golang is quite an adventure. It's extremely distant from go's spirit, the grammar is even more rich than Rust. Typical example: let, run, with, apply, and also - they all practically do the same but with a different scope of this and return value. Just looking at the flow API can get your head spinning. To illustrate how much it's completely the opposite of Go, see how Rob Pike pokes fun at map/filter and tells people they should not use it . I guess you can't force all developers to adhere to this mental model, but that's about it, but that's about it, technical arguments are irrelevant except for extremely niche concerns about memory and startup time

I mean sure, let's praise the ergonomics of channels and the reliability of maps. As for datastructures, we already have datastructures at home . They just work fine. Nobody needs more than that because rob pike told us so

Go will never have a map/filter syntax, to the point rob pike even makes fun of it , do you really want to use it for that kind of domain ?

Also since generators are mentioned I recently came across this rob pike moment, he implemented a reduce function that takes and returns all interface{} types and uses reflection to check if the call is valid at runtime - that's the most typical Go that can ever be written in 40 lines - all that to make the point that it's useless. Such a great spirit. https://github.com/robpike/filter

A few points that stood out to me: error handling in Go is generally pretty good. It's much more performant compared to throwing exceptions and the high frequency of error handling helps a lot with debugging and avoiding unexpected errors. What you've described as "poor OOP'ish" is partly true, yes Go does poor OOP, because it doesn't try to do OOP. The language favours composition over inheritance. Strongly applying OOP concepts in Go is simply not using the language in its intended way. For implicit interfaces, it's completely fair that you don't like them, but it's not a disadvantage of the language. I for one find implicit interfaces very intuitive and feel it's the right way for it to be done. No function overloading and lack of ternary operations is absolutely intentional, both of these are overcome by writing more expressive code, which is not a bad thing. Similarly with no built in map/filter/find, these can be achieved using for-loops. Reference https://github.com/robpike/filter for Rob Pike's implementation of filter, stating in the readme that there's not much use for it and to just use for-loops instead. Last thing, enums are expressed using iota: https://go.dev/ref/spec#Iota

> I didn't get that desire for purity that you gleaned from it.

'Folks who develop an allergic reaction to "big balls of mutable state without sum types" tend to gravitate towards languages that gives them control over mutability, lifetimes, and lets them build abstractions.'

This mutability argument is present throughout the article. Seems like nothing sans Rust or niche functional languages is enough.

> Nil pointer exceptions, for example, don't have to exist anymore..

The language most notorious for those is Java due to almost everything being passed via a nullable reference. When everything can be nullable, how can you know where to check for it? Go addresses this to an extent by explicitly separating pointers from values. Values are the default and cannot be nil, so the opportunity for null dereferences is greatly diminished. It's not a perfect solution, but it's not nothing either.

> and yet they do in Go because they couldn't be bothered to add sum types.

Damn those lazy Go devs!

> Its type system is barely a step above a dynamic language.

Turns out even a basic type system is a huge improvement over none. Just being able to restrict values to concrete types goes a long way.

> You have to write the same imperative looping code over and over because Rob Pike would rather just use a for loop than something mildly expressive like map or filter (https://github.com/robpike/filter).

There are arguments to be made either way, but I definitely agree generics (along with iterators) should have been there since day 1.

> Every function that does meaningful work is littered with if err != nil { return err }.

One big positive of this that I don't see in other languages is every `return` in a function must be on the start of a line. That is, every single exit path of a function is easily findable by visually scanning

[1]: https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/issues/8153

The Meson build system Version: 1.2.3 Source dir: /home/patrik/workspace/Waybar Build dir: /home/patrik/workspace/Waybar/build Build type: native build Project name: waybar Project version: 0.9.24 C compiler for the host machine: cc (gcc 13.2.0 "cc (Debian 13.2.0-5) 13.2.0") C linker for the host machine: cc ld.bfd 2.41 C++ compiler for the host machine: c++ (gcc 13.2.0 "c++ (Debian 13.2.0-5) 13.2.0") C++ linker for the host machine: c++ ld.bfd 2.41 Host machine cpu family: x86_64 Host machine cpu: x86_64 Compiler for C++ supports link arguments -lc++fs: NO Compiler for C++ supports link arguments -lc++experimental: NO Compiler for C++ supports link arguments -lstdc++fs: YES Program git found: YES (/usr/bin/git) WARNING: You should add the boolean check kwarg to the run_command call. It currently defaults to false, but it will default to true in future releases of meson. See also: https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/issues/9300 Has header "filesystem" : YES Checking if "nl_langinfo with _NL_TIME_WEEK_1STDAY, _NL_TIME_FIRST_WEEKDAY" : links: YES Run-time dependency threads found: YES Found pkg-config: /usr/bin/pkg-config (1.8.1) Run-time dependency fmt found: YES 9.1.0 Run-time dependency spdlog found: YES 1.12.0 Run-time dependency wayland-client found: YES 1.22.0 Run-time dependency wayland-cursor found: YES 1.22.0 Run-time dependency wayland-protocols found: YES 1.32 Run-time dependency gtkmm-3.0 found: YES 3.24.8 Run-time dependency dbusmenu-gtk3-0.4 found: YES 16.04.0 Run-time dependency gio-unix-2.0 found: YES 2.78.1 Run-time dependency jsoncpp found: YES 1.9.4 Run-time dependency sigc++-2.0 found: YES 2.12.1 Found CMake: /usr/bin/cmake (3.27.7) Run-time dependency libinotify found: NO (tried pkgconfig and cmake) Run-time dependency epoll-shim found: NO (tried pkgconfig and cmake) Run-time dependency libinput found: YES 1.23.0 Run-time dependency libnl-3.0 found: YES 3.7.0 Run-time dependency libnl-genl-3.0 found: YES 3.7.0 Run-time dependency upower-glib found: YES 1.90.2 Run-time dependency libpipewire-0.3 found: YES 0.3.85 Run-time dependency playerctl found: YES 2.4.1 Run-time dependency libpulse found: YES 16.1 Run-time dependency libudev found: YES 252 Run-time dependency libevdev found: YES 1.13.1 Run-time dependency libmpdclient found: YES 2.20 Run-time dependency xkbregistry found: YES 1.6.0 Run-time dependency jack found: YES 0.126.0 Run-time dependency wireplumber-0.4 found: YES 0.4.15 Library sndio found: YES Checking for function "sioctl_open" with dependency -lsndio: YES Run-time dependency gtk-layer-shell-0 found: YES 0.8.1 Run-time dependency systemd found: YES 252 Computing int of "__cpp_lib_chrono" : 201611 Configuring waybar.service using configuration Run-time dependency cava found: NO (tried pkgconfig and cmake) Looking for a fallback subproject for the dependency cava Executing subproject cava cava| Project name: cava cava| Project version: 0.9.1 cava| C compiler for the host machine: cc (gcc 13.2.0 "cc (Debian 13.2.0-5) 13.2.0") cava| C linker for the host machine: cc ld.bfd 2.41 cava| Has header "iniparser.h" : NO cava| Has header "iniparser4/iniparser.h" : NO Message: cava is not found. Building waybar without cava subprojects/cava-0.9.1/meson.build:65:3: ERROR: Problem encountered: iniparser library is required A full log can be found at /home/patrik/workspace/Waybar/build/meson-logs/meson-log.txt WARNING: Running the setup command as `meson [options]` instead of `meson setup [options]` is ambiguous and deprecated.

As it happens, I recently landed a PR in meson to add a clang-like Weverything mode that includes all of that, so you can get a minimal list of more or less all GCC warnings, organized by version, from the meson source here: https://github.com/mesonbuild/meson/blob/710a753c78077220b13a9f7e999dcdb61339efb1/mesonbuild/compilers/mixins/gnu.py

Came here to post the same. The answer for How to build software? is Meson[1] for C and C++ and also other languages. Works well on Windows and Mac, too.

I’ve written a small Makefile to learn the basic and backgrounds. Make is fine. But the next high-level would have been Autotools, which is an intimidating and weird set of tools. Most new stuff written in C/C++ use now Meson and it feels sane.

[1] https://mesonbuild.com

If you are very fortunate, you'll be able to choose something else. I like meson myself: it looks a bit like python, it's popular, small, simple, well-documented, easy to install and update, and it works well everywhere.

I suggest changing the build tool. Meson improved C and C++ a lot:

https://mesonbuild.com/

The dependency declaration and auto-detection is nice. But the hidden extra is WrapDB, built-in package management (if wanted):

    https://mesonbuild.com/Wrap-dependency-system-manual.html

> C's only REAL problem (in my opinion) which is the lack of dependency management. Most everything else can be done with a makefile and a half decent editor.

Care to hear about our lord and saviour Meson?

Both of your quoted problems are mutually incompatible: dependency management isn't the job of the compiler, it's a job for the build or host system. If you want to keep writing makefiles, be prepared to write your own `wget` and `git` invocations to download subprojects.

Meanwhile, Meson solves the dependency management problem in a way that makes both developers and system integrators/distributions happy. It forces you to make a project that doesn't have broken inter-file or header dependency chains and cleans up all the clutter and cruft of a makefile written for any non-trivial project, while making it trivial to integrate other meson projects into your build, let other people integrate your project into theirs, and provides all of the toggles and environment variables distribution developers need to package your library properly. You can really have your cake and eat it too.

https://mesonbuild.com/

Other people going down this route seem to end up writing cmake replacements instead. I'm thinking of something like meson here except that meson never intended to transpile to cmake.