Interesting. I've only dipped my toe in the AI waters but my initial experience with a Go project wasn't good.

I tried out the latest Claude model last weekend. As a test I asked it to identify areas for performance improvement in one of my projects. One of the areas looked significant and truth be told, was an area I expected to see in the list.

I asked it to implement the fix. It was a dozen or so lines and I could see straightaway that it had introduced a race condition. I tested it and sure enough, there was a race condition.

I told it about the problem and it suggested a further fix that didn't solve the race condition at all. In fact, the second fix only tried to hide the problem.

I don't doubt you can use these tools well, but it's far too easy to use them poorly. There are no guard rails. I also believe that they are marketed without any care that they can be used poorly.

Whether Go is a better language for agentic programming or not, I don't know. But it may be to do with what the language is being used for. My example was a desktop GUI application and there'll be far fewer examples of those types of application written in Go.

I don't believe the "corpus" argument that much.

I have been extending the Elm language with Effect semantics (ala ZIO/Rio/Effect-ts) for a new langauge called Eelm (extended-Elm or effectful-elm) and both Haskell (the language that the Elm compiler is written in) and Eelm (the target language, now we some new fancy capabilities) shouldn't have a particularly relevant corpus of code.

Yet, my experiments show that Opus 4.6 is terrific at understanding and authoring both Haskell and Eelm.

Why? I think it stems from the properties of these languages themselves: no mutability makes it reason to think about, fully statically typed, excellent compiler and diagnostics. On top of that the syntax is rather small.

Go’s design philosophy actually aligns with AI’s current limitations very well.

AI has trouble with deep complexity, go is simple by design. With usually only one or two correct paths instruction wise. Architecturally you can design your src however but there’s a pretty well established standard.

One of the things that makes it work so well with agents is two facts. Go is a language that is focused on simplicity and also the gofmt and go coding style makes that almost all go code looks familiar, because everyone write the code with a very consistent style. That two things makes the experience pleasant and the work for the llm easier.

I have had good experience with Go, but I've also had good results with TypeScript. Compile-time checks are very important to getting good results. I don't think the simplicity of the language matters as much as the LLM being generally aware of the language via training data and being able to validate the output via compilation.

Yeah in my experience Claude is significantly better at writing go than other languages I’ve tried (Python, typescript)

I wonder how is the experience writing Rust or Zig with LLMs. I suspect zig might not have enough training data and rust might struggle with compile times and extra context required for borrow checker.

I'm having similarly good results with go and agents. Another good language for it is flutter/dart in my experience.

[dead]

Enums is mine.

Going on year 4 working at $DAY_JOB and just last week we had a case where enums and also union types would have made things simpler.

Yes, it is not specially different from other linkers. It has some tasks building the final binary including special sections in the binary, and is more aware about the specifics of the go language. But there is nothing that is extremely different from other linkers. The whole point of the series is to explain a real compiler, but in general, most of the parts of the go compiler are very widely used in other languages, like ssa, ast, escape analysis, inlining...

The difference is that Go has its own linker rather than using a system linker. Another article could explain the benefits of tighter integration and the drawbacks of this approach. Having its own toolchain I assume is part of what enables the easy cross compilation of Go.

What is there to explain? The author did not claim there is a difference in the article.

Why should it be one?

The title is misleading

It's pretty good at dead code elimination. The size of Go binaries is in large part because of the runtime implementation. Remove a bunch of the runtime's features (profiling, stacktraces, sysmon, optimizations that avoid allocations, maybe even multithreading...) and you'll end up with much smaller binaries. I would love if there was a build tag like "runtime_tiny", that provides such an implementation.

I think it depends on the codebase. There are some reflection calls that you can make that can cause dead code elimination to fail, thought I believe it's less easy to run into than it was a few years ago. One common dependency, at least in my line of work, is the Kubernetes API and it manages to both be gigantic and trigger this edge case (last I looked), so yeah, the binaries end up pretty big.

Another thing that people run into is big binaries = slow container startup times. This time is mostly spent in gzip. If you use Zstandard layers instead of gzip layers, startup time is improved. gzip decompression is actually very slow, and the OCI spec no longer mandates it.

Go has a runtime. That alone is over a megabyte. Tinygo on the other hand has very limited(smaller) runtime. In other words, you don't know what you're talking about.

The Go tooling is heavily based on the Inferno tool chain which was based off the highly portable Plan 9 tool chain. Plan 9 by default is statically linked as dynamic libraries are supported but not implemented anywhere. The idea was that librarys should instead be implemented as a service that runs local or on a remote machine.

In fact it generate single optimized exe files, but it does in multiple steps for multiple reasons, one of them is separation of concerns, but also, one of the main reasons is speed. The linker is linking (normally statically linking) different already build cached libraries, including the runtime. Without the linking ability, you would need to compile everything every time. Not only that, the linker has other responsibilities, like building some metadata that goes into the binary, for example the dynamic dispatch table.