gometalinter

ther goreportcard has to adopt a new license and ensure they’re compliant with that license or suffer relying on subpar software that has been abandoned by its creator and community. Now perhaps I’m ignorant (something I often find myself guilty of when speaking on such lofty topics, please forgive and correct me if this is the case) to what you mean by “complete freedom” but that doesn’t seem like “complete freedom” to me, it sounds like two incompatible sets of ethics.

ng a macro down. It is well known that macros don't stay simple and often grow quite complicated; some people attribute this and the fact that macros become their own language and thus no two Lisp libraries are necessarily written in the "same language" to why Lisp hasn't managed to conquer the world. I'm noodling around with ideas here here, not promoting Go as this language; if it were designed for that there's probably some things it would do differently. I just find it sort of intriguing that if you don't mind using tools, a lot of the common criticisms of Go can be largely mitigated without necessarily paying the price of putting the complexity in the language itself; even if that doesn't personally appeal to you it's interesting to consider it as a deliberate design paradigm. Is this a good idea? It's almost like having a modular language where you only use the complex stuff where you really get an advantage from it but don't pay for that stuff where you don't. You couldn't use this to bodge in things like the Rust borrow checker that really needs the whole program to use it to obtain the benefits, and a lot of what Haskell does with the typechecker would be infeasible, but it's not hard to see things like "sum type completeness checking" and "generics via code templating" and even things as large as "optional typing" being feasible this way, without the core language authors having to arbitrate all these things, and without the whole community necessarily having to adopt these things to see advantages. Compare with, for instance, the rather large mess Python has become over the years by absorbing feature after feature into the core language. See also the gometalinter [1], in which the community aggregates a collection of smaller tools all written fully independently, with little-to-no coordination needed, all standalone, and then tied into what is, frankly, not a half bad language linter, especially if you play with the config a bit. [1]: https://github.com/alecthomas/gometalinter

.com/alecthomas/gometalinter. I've got a profile of a gometalinter setup that I've got some of my projects hooked up to a pre-commit hook on [1], but only for selected hooks. Things supported in that package range from "really no good reason ever to have this 'linter' complain" to "I've hardly ever seen it emit a warning I agreed with" (sorry, gocyclo, but along with my general distaste for cyclomatic complexity being a useful metric, you're set too painfully low for me). See also the other story on the HN front page as I write this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11396477 You would not hook that to a precommit hook. You'd just run it every so often. [1]: If you're interested in this yourself, basically I just wrapped the metalinter behind a shell script, started committing, and whenever it complains about something I don't like, I either hack out the specific warning or the entire linter in question, depending. Best just to grow your own profile. You may also find this trick amusing: In the pre-commit hook, I actually have it chdir into the project root and run this: ./gml $(find -name lintclean -printf "%h ") "gml" is the aforementioned shell script consisting basically of "gometalinter $ALL_THE_EXCLUSIONS $*", and the find comand makes it so you drop a file named "lintclean" in a package that you want to keep clean. The precommit hook then only triggers on packages that you've "declared" to be sealed to be clean, meaning you can develop freely without the linter screaming continuously.