81–90 of 327 posts
I'd say after 6 years adoption rate has been rather lackluster
Compared to what other new language?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The prevailing feeling of Go is "getting things done". This is a common refrain amongst go proponents and I find it quite distasteful. It either implies those of us who prefer other languages aren't "getting things done" or those who feel productive in Go aren't smart/hard-working/educated/etc enough to "get things done" in other languages. I don't think either is true. I think a more accurate way to look at Go is…
It's true though. Go has a small number of language features, and they are only the simplest ones. It can be learned in a day. Other languages like JS, Ruby, and Python have a big fixation on figuring out the prettiest syntax for stuff (JS promises and chaining etc, "Pythonicness", and Ruby's incessant cuteness). In Go, you can't really make things pretty, so you just bang out code.
JS is pretty damn tricky though, I'll give you that one.
I wish the gdb support were better or that delve were more stable. I also had some weirdnesses using cgo on osx. Then I went into #go-nuts on freenode, and I got told I was wrong and there was no problem. Back in 2009 #go-nuts seemed to be a much different place. I write Go at work, and I admire many of the same things in Go I admire about Python. I still wish generics were part of the language and will say their exc…
Having now developed 30 micro-services for Go, which all utilise channels and thus run much faster than any other language I used is just amazing.
Not only has my productivity increased majorly, but also my support time has rapidly decreased.
These micro-services which run in the background just work:
- With PHP they don't run out of memory or the database connection doesn't time out.
- With Python I don't get random crashes due to pool.map.
- With NodeJS I don't have to run multiple instances to get the speed.
I've looked at web frameworks like beego, gin, revel and others. But I'm waiting till something comes out that's more inline with what I have used with PHP. Something like slim framework.
If it ever does come out, it will give me the push to switch 100% to Go. Can't wait really.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The prevailing feeling of Go is "getting things done". This is a common refrain amongst go proponents and I find it quite distasteful. It either implies those of us who prefer other languages aren't "getting things done" or those who feel productive in Go aren't smart/hard-working/educated/etc enough to "get things done" in other languages. I don't think either is true. I think a more accurate way to look at Go is…
You are over analyzing that phrase.
I wonder how much the simple presence of an editing window on a language's home page contributes to overall adoption of the language. It sure lowers the bar to "I'll just write a few lines of code and see how this language feels."
Go seems like a fun language that has been sitting on my "look into it list" for a while, can't belive it's already six years old. Since the TensorFlow video post is currently on the frontpage as well...as someone who uses neither C++ nor Go (I can write FizzBuzz level of code in both and read both well enough to get what's going on) I have to wonder how much internal buyin Go really has at Google if the core of such…
Go is not Erlang. Go supports green threads (goroutines) and offers CSP-like channels to communicate between threads. However, it does not have a distributed computing story yet (at least, not compared to Erlang, the usual Java frameworks, etc.).
For a library such as TensorFlow, Go is not really an option yet, for many difference reasons. E.g. the lack of parametric polymorphism makes it hard to parametrize code for single, double, or even half precision. Go does not support anything like expression templates, which exploit laziness to eliminate temporaries. Moreover, a lot of machine learning happens on GPUs nowadays. AFAIK, there are no CuDNN bindings for Go yet.
tl;dr: impedance mismatch
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The prevailing feeling of Go is "getting things done". This is a common refrain amongst go proponents and I find it quite distasteful. It either implies those of us who prefer other languages aren't "getting things done" or those who feel productive in Go aren't smart/hard-working/educated/etc enough to "get things done" in other languages. I don't think either is true. I think a more accurate way to look at Go is…
It's true though. Go has a small number of language features, and they are only the simplest ones. It can be learned in a day. Other languages like JS, Ruby, and Python have a big fixation on figuring out the prettiest syntax for stuff (JS promises and chaining etc, "Pythonicness", and Ruby's incessant cuteness). In Go, you can't really make things pretty, so you just bang out code.
It's subjective though. I'd guess that if you're a fan of the suckless style of engineering, go might be right in your wheelhouse and you will probably find it very beautiful if you can accept garbage collection.
Go seems like a fun language that has been sitting on my "look into it list" for a while, can't belive it's already six years old. Since the TensorFlow video post is currently on the frontpage as well...as someone who uses neither C++ nor Go (I can write FizzBuzz level of code in both and read both well enough to get what's going on) I have to wonder how much internal buyin Go really has at Google if the core of such…
I think in the TensorFlow case it is just a purely technical decision - I don't see how they could achieve what they aim for with that project in Go (or really, in anything but C/C++ at this point in time). Right tool for the job, etc.
and if you watch Jeff Dean's video, he mentioned more front end in other languages, Go is the only example and as the interest from internal.