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

131–140 of 346 posts

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

#131

Post by baby »

thanatos_dem wrote: post #31
boapnuaput wrote: post #10

Keep reading; further down the thread, Rob "Commander" Pike found it "a surprise" that Google trademarked Go. Maybe Pike feels that Go isn't Google's language, but it certainly seems that Google does indeed have a modicum of control over Go, and that that control is above and beyond the Go authors' perception.

Of course not, it's not Google's language, it's Rob Pike's language. The logo was designed by his wife, and most of the questionable design choices in Go are there because of his opinions, such as the dubious dependency management and lack of generics. A lot of the power of go comes from it being opinionated, but that same opinionated approach is a real pain for some (it turns out common) use cases. With all that sai…

Hopefully they won't implement generics.

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

#132

Post by baby »

zemo wrote: post #118
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.

You probably don't. You can still use gopath and choose to use gopath for another project that doesn't.

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

#133

Post by holografix »

holografix wrote: post #62
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.

Care to explain what a CLA is? Assuming a legal term...?

Thanks all. So basically you can’t build a close source app with GO?

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

#134

Post by baby »

dana321 wrote: post #116
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) ?

Never, but it's probably because abstractions hid all the bugs.

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

#135

Post by booleandilemma »

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…

If I had made Go, no one would be using it right now.

It would be really frustrating for you, because assuming people found out about your language in the first place, it would be shot down for not having generics (or something else), and there wouldn’t be any Google fanboys to come defend it. So much of what’s popular is determined by which company is backing it, whether people want to admit that or not. Pure bandwagoning.

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

#136

Post by ilikehurdles »

tomnipotent wrote: post #119
iends wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Lots of popular open source projects, including those that are not web services, sputter and die after the primary author stops working on it. When push comes to shove, when teams see that a part of their stack has been abandoned upstream, most will try to replace that part rather than take on the responsibilities of ownership.

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

#137

Post by bradleyjg »

tomnipotent wrote: post #119
iends wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Source code is of limited use if a company decides it is no longer interested and never allowed external developers into the processes that would have, over time, given them the necessary context to run with the project. At that point the only real hope the project has is that some nucleus of people quit the former sponsoring company to keep it going.

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

#139

Post by [deleted] »

bradleyjg wrote: post #137
tomnipotent wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Source code is of limited use if a company decides it is no longer interested and never allowed external developers into the processes that would have, over time, given them the necessary context to run with the project. At that point the only real hope the project has is that some nucleus of people quit the former sponsoring company to keep it going.

[deleted]

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

#140

Post by iends »

javajosh wrote: post #130
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…

> You have to be Mozilla, or Google, or someone it seems in order to convince people this language is for real Counter-examples: Clojure, Elm.

Sorry, but those languages don't really have adoption outside of small echo chambers.
Post reply on HN