161–170 of 346 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The language is not the name. The name is protected.
I'm not so sure. Technically the name isn't Go, since that was already a protected name in use by someone else. So it's "Golang." And if "Golang" is acceptably different from "Go," I don't see why "Cnus-Go" shouldn't be different enough, too. It seems like at the very least you'd have to call it "Cnus-Golang" in order to start infringing on their IP.
(Also there is discussion of this point in comments to TFA)
Not saying anything about Go necessarily, but Google being behind a technology doesn’t exactly give me a warm and fuzzy that it will be “supported for years to come”.
What does it even mean for it to be "supported for years to come"? It's not a web service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
History doesn't really support that. PHP, Python, Ruby, Tcl, OCaml, Lua. Successful programming languages seem to come in equal measures from both large corporate backers and not. There is certainly the need for network effects which large corporations often can provide more consistently, but we have seen plenty of examples within the space where individuals or smaller companies have been successful in providing thes…
in the early 90s the languages had to provide fewer features to be considered adoptable. Once people adopted that language they had to expand it. Nowadays if you want to create a new language there is a minimum set of features everybody expects that raises the complexity quite high. You could just create a bare language but who would adopt that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost every major significant OSS project has a corporate sponsor (usually in the form of paid employees doing the bulk of contributions). Don't see the problem with that. And it's usually problems people are solving are work that instigate most of these contributions, so it's a damn good thing Go has a company like Google to act as steward, regardless of all the useless FUD people like to pretend "may" happen becau…
You're comments are getting quite circular. Your original post in this thread was implying that since the project is open source, corporate sponsorship was less important. At least that is how it reads.
So you don't get to be angry that the things open source projects need - strong cores - usually come in the way of companies paying for them.
Go having Google is a good thing, regardless of all the pointless stupid FUD people like to spread because it makes them feel better to point out something that could be scary.
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'? Wil…
That seems like a special case. Kotlin swaps in easily because it was designed to be compatible with Java, and you've bought into the Java ecosystem already. For someone coming from a different ecosystem, it would be a big jump.
Kotlin and the community version of IntelliJ came along _way after_ the Android toolchain was already available, and Google basically shifted gears and adopted it. Android Studio switched from Eclipse to IntelliJ, and Kotlin is now a default language.
I just don't see that kind of change ever happening with Go. There's no "other voice". It feels like it's "Google with a few enthusiasts".
A lot of technology development happens at Google and FB and AirBnb these days because that is where the money is, so that is where the smart people go. In the previous generation they would have been at Xerox or Bell Labs. The work they do is often generic and of general interest. We should resist the idea that because the creators are sojourning in the bosom of some corporation, that corp "owns" the work. This is a…
Also, there were some serious intellectual property disputes in the early history of Unix, which you're ignoring. Things are better now, but it's not something to be taken for granted.
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…
History doesn't really support that. PHP, Python, Ruby, Tcl, OCaml, Lua. Successful programming languages seem to come in equal measures from both large corporate backers and not. There is certainly the need for network effects which large corporations often can provide more consistently, but we have seen plenty of examples within the space where individuals or smaller companies have been successful in providing thes…