jtolds

How is it marketing if it's from someone who just quit in objection?

I replied to your comment on my website, but for posterity here, yes, I do think you did a good job for the part about exiting when bestScore > 100. There's nitpicks, but this is fine! It makes sense, and nice use of a select over a send.

I did expect that this exercise would come after the first one though, and doing this on top of a solution to the first exercise is a bit harder. That said, I also don't mean to claim either are impossible. It's just tough to reason about.

I have written channel code in the last week. It's part of the deal (especially with the context package). I'm just happy to see them restrained.

Seriously! This caused such a ruckus when I posted this 9 years ago. I lost some professional acquaintanceships over it! Definitely a different reception.

> the complaints about channels have largely been received and agreed upon by experienced Go developers. Channels are still useful but they were way more prominent in the early days of Go as a solution to lots of problems, and nowadays are instead understood as a sharp tool only useful for specific problems.

As the author of the post, it's really gratifying to hear that this is your assessment nowadays. I agree, and while I'm not sure I had much to do with this turn of events (it probably would have happened with or without me), curbing the use of channels is precisely why I wrote the post. I felt like Go could be much better if everyone stopped messing around with them. So, hooray!

Author of the post here, I really like Go! It's my favorite language! It has absolutely nailed high concurrency programming in a way that other languages' solutions make me cringe to think through (await/async are so gross and unnecessary!)

If you are intending to do something that has multiple concurrent tasks ongoing at the same time, I would definitely reach for Go (and maybe be very careful or skip entirely using channels). I also would reach for Go if you intend to work with a large group of other software engineers. Go is rigid; when I first started programming I thought I wanted maximum flexibility, but Go brings uniformity to a group of engineers' output in a way that makes the overall team much more productive IMO.

Basically, I think Go is the best choice for server-side or backend programming, with an even stronger case when you're working with a team.

Adding an atomic counter is absolutely a great solution in the real world, definitely, and compare and swap or a mutex or similar totally is what you want to do. In fact, that's my point in that part of the post - you want an atomic variable or a mutex or something there. Other synchronization primitives are more useful than sticking with the CSP idea of only using channels for synchronization.

Hi! No, I think you've misunderstood the assignment. The example posits that you have a "game" running, which should end when the last player leaves. While only using channels as a synchronization primitive (a la CSP), at what point do you decide the last player has left, and where and when do you call close on the channel?

To clarify why I said the CPU is the same and the other poster says the A30 has a better CPU, both are true! Same architecture (Cortex A7), but the Mini Plus has 2 cores and the A30 has 4 cores.

I assume the basics are similar. The Miyoo Mini Plus has WiFi, which is great, but no GPU, so I assume you end up with different drivers. But the CPU is the same so everything else should be equivalent.