zlacker

[return to "Go is still not good"]
1. 0x000x+5o[view] [source] 2025-08-22 12:50:29
>>ustad+(OP)
> If you stuff random binary data into a string, Go just steams along, as described in this post.

> Over the decades I have lost data to tools skipping non-UTF-8 filenames. I should not be blamed for having files that were named before UTF-8 existed.

Umm.. why blame Go for that?

◧◩
2. thomas+us[view] [source] 2025-08-22 13:12:57
>>0x000x+5o
Author here.

What I intended to say with this is that ignoring the problem if invalid UTF-8 (could be valid iso8859-1) with no error handling, or other way around, has lost me data in the past.

Compare this to Rust, where a path name is of a different type than a mere string. And if you need to treat it like a string and you don't care if it's "a bit wrong" (because it's for being shown to the user), then you can call `.to_string_lossy()`. But it's be more hard to accidentally not handle that case when exact name match does matter.

When exactness matters, `.to_str()` returns `Option<&str>`, so the caller is forced to deal with the situation that the file name may not be UTF-8.

Being sloppy with file name encodings is how data is lost. Go is sloppy with strings of all kinds, file names included.

[go to top]