How do I get started with Go? [closed] - go

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Basically, the title already says it all: How do I get started with Go? Of course I know the Go website and the documentation that is there, but what other resources are there?
Any good tutorials, videos, blogs, books, …?

Start with http://tour.golang.org. It will guide you through the language features and differences.
Then install it locally and try to port something simple you've written in another language.
The most important resources are the standard package docs and sites like http://godoc.org/ which provides an online documentation generator for any public code repositories.
The document Effective Go is also very useful for explanations of how to use the various language features.
There is a collection of videos on the Go wiki.
For blogs, try http://blog.golang.org/ , http://dave.cheney.net/ , http://labix.org/ and http://www.goinggo.net/ for starters.
Unfortunately, the Go books that are out there are aiming at a moving target so they struggle to be comprehensive. I'd recommend sticking with the official package docs which are usually replete with code examples.
A good tip for idiomatic code is to read the package source files, especially the *_test.go files as they usually provide nice examples of most of the ways the package can be used. This is, as an aside, a wonderful side-effect to comprehensive package tests.

Related

Go Library automation [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
To learn go I am trying to build an open source library, I like the language but since I am still a bit new I can't find good direction on how to automate building, testing and releasing.
I had the idea to use Makefiles etc.. am I in the right direction or there is better tools to do that.
Best,
Khaled
Here some useful links
Here you have a link for best practice for coding
https://peter.bourgon.org/go-best-practices-2016/
https://golang.org/doc/code.html
Working with packages, useful links.
http://thenewstack.io/understanding-golang-packages/
https://www.goinggo.net/2013/07/how-packages-work-in-go-language.html
I recommend to review the open source libraries to get an idea.(there are tons of them)
https://github.com/urfave/cli
https://github.com/boltdb/raw
https://github.com/matryer/try
To automate your project. I recommend to see projects like Drone
https://github.com/drone/drone

Projects handler program [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
In our company we need a project handler so we decided to write our own.
We use CMake and bazaar and we still don't know if to store the informations of the
projects in XML format or in a database.
We are locked at this point: we would like to use as less languages/tools as possible
but we cannot find a way to interface CMake with XML files or databases.
An idea could be Python but it would be really annoying to use a new language just for an interface. We've seen that there's a Python framework (Waf) but we have already used CMake for all our projects and it would take a lot of time to convert all.
We work with Ubuntu and Windows.
Suggestions ?
thanks in advance
Rather than make your own tool, use an off-the-shelf product like something from the Jira suite, or BuildMaster. Many of these have great integration with most build software and don't require you to write and maintain your own stack just to manage projects.
Focus your developer time on solving your business problems, not on reinventing the wheel. Their time is MUCH more valuable than the cost of using a ready-made solution.

Pitfalls to avoid when writing project specs [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm currently trying to write up some software specs for a large-ish project that I'd like to bid out on oDesk (maybe 3k-6k). I have a classical education in computer science, but minimal work experience and I've never worked in a corporate environment.
I've written up 15 pages of project specs for an API that I want to run on Google App Engine. I'm finding the subtleties difficult with issues such as: where to draw the line on what to specify and what not to; how to break the project up into pieces so that if one part goes wrong, other parts can still be used; where and how to set milestones; and how to screen for a candidate who has the skills to properly implement the specs.
I asked a friend what issues I should watch out for and he said:
Make sure specs do not have contradictory information
Make sure specs are not unnecessarily specific because this will turn off more skilled developers
What other pitfalls and common mistakes should I look out for while drawing up project specs?
While it is important to focus on the functionality of what you want to achieve, also keep in mind the non-functional requirements as well. Think about how you want it to perform, security considerations, etc.
One to add to the list
Make sure the specs are unambiguous. (Can only be interpreted one way...Hopefully)
I think these two links will help:
On Reqs And Specs: http://www.pragmaticmarketing.com/publications/topics/02/0204sj
Painless Functional Specifications - Part 2: What's a Spec?: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000035.html

A RubyGems with documentation, source management and API documentation? [closed]

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I have been wondering why so many coders have bad organization in their documents.
I think I know why.
As usual it has to do with standardization. If no standard it out there, everyone has to reinvent the wheel all the time.
So I upload a gem at RubyGems.org. But that was only 1/4 of it all.
I have to write a tutorial for it, making categories, text style, size, color etc
I have to generate API documentation from my code
I have to put it in Git-hub (never done this, but that should be correct?)
It's a painful process.
Wouldn't it be great if every gem followed the same documentation structure. You upload your gem, you write a documentation for it that everyone can edit, the API documentation has been generated too, maybe created automatically, if you provided your account information for example.
A good process.
I think that would boost up good collaboration and environment than every gem has its own structure (bad documentations) and putting API documentation here and there.
Don't you agree?
Would be nice if it were more of a style like that. It's worked well for wiki's having the content changeable by the community. I've found that gem documentation can be hit or miss sometimes. I think having the documentation editable would be good because people could rewrite parts that are unclear making it much more user friendly
Great suggestion!
This kind of documentation (tutorial, non-generated doc, ...) is better addressed by a wiki.
Most of the public source container out there now integrates one in their features.
GitHub recently improves its own wiki system.
It also proposes GitHub pages (for publishing content to the web by simply pushing content to one of your GitHub hosted repositories, with user pages or project pages, and with Jekyll for even more Makdown file formats)

Is the documentation of Merb as poor as it seems? [closed]

Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I've read only good things about Merb, but the documentation on the website is basically the api reference, and right now there is no books already published.
Any resources about Merb?
I guess that I'll start to read the code, but it'd be nice to have another sources of information
The wonderful PeepCode have got a Merb PDF and screencast available for $9.
The source code is really readable, pretty compact and full of comments.
Then, each merb part have a complete README full of informations too.
You can read all this on github: http://github.com/wycats/merb/
I think merb has been pretty bad about good example code, tutorials and updating dated information. I really like the project, but have been stung by this several times. Now that it has reached a semi stable 1.0 I really hope that some people step up and get a bunch of the docs up to date, add warnings to old docs and point it towards newer information. It should be great to see how they deal with supporting the project now that it is 1.0
There's the Merb Wiki and also a community book project, you can see it at http://book.merbist.com/ and the source is on github: http://github.com/mattetti/merb-book/tree/master.
You are correct. As the website will tell you, Merb is a hacker's framework. Yehuda called it an experimentation ground in a recent infoq interview . There is a lack of good examples because the system has changed a lot since its inception. Dec pointed out the github pages. They are the best source of current documentation that I know of. With the release of 1.0 the API has become stable, which will hopefully lead to less broken code examples.
I can also highly recommend the #merb IRC channel on FreeNode. Friendly, smart people.

Resources