Hacker News Reader

Actually I find it a disadvantage, I don't want to deal with source code from other teams/companies, rather binary artifacts totally separated from their toolchains.

View on HN

I find it a huge advantage, in fact the lack of blobs may be my favorite go feature. I'm sure stodgy old companies that want to preserve "IP" through security through obscurity, dislike this model.

But as a dev? I can drill down to the core (C-b in Goland, jump to definition) of ANY import. Even the entire go toolchain is in go.

ABI/version management of artifacts is a nightmare, every single time.

That is what debugging symbols are for.

Using binary dependencies doesn't preclude having access to source code if desired.

Same with Java unless they stripped symbols. Libs wouldn't be stripped though.

One of the reasons I use go is the production of static, self contained binaries. Wouldn't binary artifacts make that much more difficult?

Why should it? Static compiling has been a thing since compilers exist.

Dynamic linking only became mainstream in the mid-90s.

You can build self-contained Java JAR files for a while now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com