Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ian Lance Taylor's Response to “Go Is Google's Language”

groups.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 346 posts

Re: Ian Lance Taylor's Response to “Go Is Google's Language”

#111

Post by steveklabnik »

shuzchen wrote: post #71
purpleidea wrote: post #60

It's obvious that Golang is Google's language. The most obvious part is they require a CLA that gives them and only them special rights. It's a sham.

I don't know of any large open source project that doesn't require a CLA. As the post suggests, perhaps one day there'll be a Golang Foundation, which would otherwise have ownership of whatever code you contribute. See that Python has a CLA that gives the PSF ownership of your code: https://www.python.org/psf/contrib/contrib-form/ Even the linux kernel has a CLA, they just call it by another name (Developer Certifica…

Ruby, Ruby on Rails, and Rust are three large open source projects that do not require a CLA. That said, I do think you're correct that these days, it's in the minority.

Node had a CLA, but it was removed in 2014. It does have a "Certificate of Origin", which you claim is the same as a CLA, but I beg to differ. The issue here is that CLAs generally require you to reassign copyright; the Certificate of Origin does not. That's the part of CLAs that the OP is taking issue with.

Re: Ian Lance Taylor's Response to “Go Is Google's Language”

#112

Post by dudus »

zemo wrote: post #70
objektif wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that really true though? What abiut python and javascript for example? Did they have a giant corp behind them?

... Python was led by a Google employee for seven years.

It would be more correct to say Google hired the leader of Python and he worked there for 7 years

Re: Ian Lance Taylor's Response to “Go Is Google's Language”

#113

Post by toasterlovin »

tacosx wrote: post #82
c3534l wrote: post #58

Everyone's upset that Go is Google's language, but no one would have adopted it if it weren't. It's not enough to have a cool idea for a language, even if your cool idea is not to put any new cool ideas in the language. You have to be Mozilla, or Google, or someone it seems in order to convince people this language is for real and will be supported for many years to come, and will have a healthy ecosystem. If I had m…

I know of more than one organization that have decided against Angular in recent years primarily because of Google's backing of the project. Skepticism of the big three (four?) tech giants is growing, especially if you've had some of your market carved out by them.

Yehuda Katz said something a while ago that stuck with me. He likened Ember’s community model to Postgres. That is, relatively small levels of support from lots of different organizations. I think there’s a lot of wisdom is such an approach.

Re: Ian Lance Taylor's Response to “Go Is Google's Language”

#114

Post by 0815test »

c3534l wrote: post #58

Everyone's upset that Go is Google's language, but no one would have adopted it if it weren't. It's not enough to have a cool idea for a language, even if your cool idea is not to put any new cool ideas in the language. You have to be Mozilla, or Google, or someone it seems in order to convince people this language is for real and will be supported for many years to come, and will have a healthy ecosystem. If I had m…

> ...but no one would have adopted it if it weren't.

It's a C-like language with GC, that compiles to native code supported by an efficient runtime, and can work effectively with parallel/concurrent code. In many ways it's Java done right, or a more intuitive (and from certain POVs, preferable) alternative to Haskell and Ocaml. That would seem to be enough to drive adoption.

Re: Ian Lance Taylor's Response to “Go Is Google's Language”

#115

Post by zemo »

objektif wrote: post #92
zemo wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... Python was led by a Google employee for seven years.

Does it matter where the person worked? Python definitely was not Google’s or any other corp’s.

Google employed the primary maintainer of Python and paid him to work on it. You asked "did they have a giant corp behind them", the subtext there being that you could complete the sentence "as Go does". I'm merely pointing out that your example of Python is strikingly similar to Guido Van Rossum working at Google while he was BDFL of Python

Re: Ian Lance Taylor's Response to “Go Is Google's Language”

#116

Post by dana321 »

baby wrote: post #104

Security consultant here. The fact that Golang has no generic is a huge thing. I've read countless amount of code that abused generics (unfortunarely developers think they have to use generics all the time if they are available) and is probably completely insecure for the simple reason that very few people manage to audit/understand the code. If it generics could only be used when necessary, yes, but there are no tec…

I can feel you there, Generics can become unwieldy especially when you're nesting several different generic types.

Can you tell me if you have found any kind of security issue relating to interfaces and reflect(ion) ?

Re: Ian Lance Taylor's Response to “Go Is Google's Language”

#117

Post by mr_tristan »

I kind of read the original argument that Go is dominated by a "Google point of view", and there really isn't a significant alternative view that's as coherent. And that may be a risk.

It's not obvious to figure out how Go "plays with others". And it's unclear if that's much of a risk or not. As an outsider, you read of the funky module system duality and you wonder... "What if I don't want to 'work like Google'? Will this work in the future?" It's actually not that clear.

It's weird, because I don't get this sense, for example, with Kotlin projects in Android. You can write Kotlin in Android Studio. Or, in IntelliJ for backend code with Spring. And the tooling seems to be oriented in the same way. For most devs I've met, you can just swap Kotlin for Java, and everything else just works the same, and they don't get lost. You never have this sense of "well... _Google_ does it _this_ way..." when it comes to the tooling.

Re: Ian Lance Taylor's Response to “Go Is Google's Language”

#118

Post by zemo »

baby wrote: post #104

Security consultant here. The fact that Golang has no generic is a huge thing. I've read countless amount of code that abused generics (unfortunarely developers think they have to use generics all the time if they are available) and is probably completely insecure for the simple reason that very few people manage to audit/understand the code. If it generics could only be used when necessary, yes, but there are no tec…

> The GOPATH is also a huge win. You always know where everything is and it is really fast to figure out about dependencies or structure of the project.

I ... have some bad news.

Re: Ian Lance Taylor's Response to “Go Is Google's Language”

#119

Post by tomnipotent »

iends wrote: post #106
tptacek wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does it even mean for it to be "supported for years to come"? It's not a web service.

Bugs exist in software that are not web services.

It's a good thing it's an open source project and not a web service, then.

Re: Ian Lance Taylor's Response to “Go Is Google's Language”

#120

Post by edoceo »

c3534l wrote: post #58

Everyone's upset that Go is Google's language, but no one would have adopted it if it weren't. It's not enough to have a cool idea for a language, even if your cool idea is not to put any new cool ideas in the language. You have to be Mozilla, or Google, or someone it seems in order to convince people this language is for real and will be supported for many years to come, and will have a healthy ecosystem. If I had m…

Just like the inventor of the other language Go. They even filed am early bug asking G to change the name.

Folk were using that Go, but they would use the Google Go.

Post reply on HN