Earlier quoted context omitted.
clojure is lisp on the jvm. not sure about elm.
I think they were being sarcastic.
oh, duh.
Ian Lance Taylor's Response to “Go Is Google's Language”
291–300 of 346 posts
Re: Ian Lance Taylor's Response to “Go Is Google's Language”
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The last thing we want is another Java ecosystem, Which practically contains almost everything one can think of? Yeah, like that's not a good thing. Where's the golang equivalent of Hadoop, Spark, Vertx, Netty, Akka, etc.? Not to mention the Java standard library with it's new time package, and java.util.concurrent, and many more. > Better to not have generics than to have generics that are bodged into the language…
The Java time package has been a disaster for 20 years until Java 8, before that everyone was using Joda. As for generics have a look at what C# does for "proper" generics.
I'm aware of what C# does, that's why I said it was a tradeoff. Compare the number of languages on the JVM to those on the CLR to see why they made this tradeoff. The JVM folks are working on improving generics even further in upcoming releases.
I know about Joda time, that even another point in how mature the Java ecosystem is. There's no similar offering in golang.
Re: Ian Lance Taylor's Response to “Go Is Google's Language”
#293Is Java is or is Java ain't Oracle's baby?
Re: Ian Lance Taylor's Response to “Go Is Google's Language”
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
> In many ways it's Java done right Not quite: * no generics * error prone error handling * non tunable GC * null pointers * golang interfaces are messy and can't be used to tag structures * golang time package is garbage and lots more Java today is superior to golang in almost every front.
Memory usage, compile time, simplicity, readability and deployment story are notable fronts in which go is several miles ahead.
Java will use however much memory is assigned to it, since it defaults to throughput performance (though now with G1 and Shenandoah that can also be tuned)[1].
Compilation times are not that different, especially when using incremental compilation. I worked on large projects in both languages, and for any non-trivial code base, the difference isn't that far off.
I'd argue that readability is better in Java due to things like non-clutter due to error handling, and the existence of generics.
Deployment has been solved for a while now with building shadow jars[1].
[1] Not to mention offerings like: https://quarkus.io/
Re: Ian Lance Taylor's Response to “Go Is Google's Language”
#295I 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…
> And that may be a risk. How is it a risk? Is Rust at risk because of Mozilla? What about Java given all its corporate sponsors? People need to stop with this predictive FUD crap, it's tiring.
Rust isn't really a fair comparison, not anymore anyway, it's very much a community led project.
Re: Ian Lance Taylor's Response to “Go Is Google's Language”
#296“It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It” —- Google employee’s defenses of Go Even if it is theoretically true that Go is open source, by employing the majority of the Core Go team, Google exercises extensive soft power over Go. All of the defenses of Go seem to gloss over this.
I'm both surprised and unsurprised that this quote is so far down the page. The little twists and turns in the OP are the typical detail-oriented rationalizations of a very smart individual, who has given himself to the group and doesn't want to admit it.
Re: Ian Lance Taylor's Response to “Go Is Google's Language”
#297> Successful languages pay attention to what people want, but to change the language according to what most people want is, I believe, a recipe for chaos and incoherence. I believe that every successful language must have a coherent vision that is shared by a relatively small group of people. I'm continually surprised that more of the greater, vocal community does not grok this.
They do grok it, they just don't trust that specific small group of people.
More to the point, they correctly perceive that that specific small group of people are acting on behalf of a evil corporation, rather than based on a coherent vision of what a successful language should look like.
Re: Ian Lance Taylor's Response to “Go Is Google's Language”
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks. I read further along in the linked post and found this comment by Rob Pike, one of Go's chief developers: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/golang-nuts/6dKNSN0M_kg/dMCQ... > The name Go is not trademarked by Google, at least as a programming language trademark. There are other things Google makes called Go (an interesting signal on its own) and they might be trademarked, but Go the language is not a trademark.…
I'm not certain, but I think that page is wrong. I searched the USPTO database of trademarks for "Golang" and nothing was picked up: http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=toc&state=4809%3Ax... I'm not confident I'm correct only because it seems unlikely Google would have a page listing trademarks it doesn't actually own. That being said, I'm pretty sure there's no other place to search for trademarks. I also don'…
> it seems unlikely Google would have a page listing trademarks it doesn't actually own
Putting a ™ symbol after a name is only a claim on that name to be one's own property for use as a mark on some product or service when trading, and big corporates do this all the time. So I think it's likely Google would have such a page.
> I also don't think there is actually a trademark on the term "Go" based on this USPTO search
There's a distinction between a trademark and a registered trademark. Registering the name in some jurisdiction's database just means the corp has begun its defense of that claim before it sees a perceived infringement.
I would imagine everyday words like "Go" (or "Groovy") wouldn't be accepted by the US trademark office anyway, so perhaps Google tried but failed to register it there. They might get "Golang" accepted but the Go team have said the name of the language is "Go" not "Golang".
Re: Ian Lance Taylor's Response to “Go Is Google's Language”
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t understand the comparison to Haskell or Ocaml; those languages are not C like and have a much different philosophy on the responsibilities of the language and type system.
Haskell is not C like? You can write Haskell with curly brackets and semicolons, just like Go! I rest my case. No, but seriously, you didn't get what I was saying there. The whole reason Go might be of interest is that it is loosely C-like in a way that Haskell and Ocaml are not.
[deleted]
Re: Ian Lance Taylor's Response to “Go Is Google's Language”
#300> Successful languages pay attention to what people want, but to change the language according to what most people want is, I believe, a recipe for chaos and incoherence. I believe that every successful language must have a coherent vision that is shared by a relatively small group of people. I'm continually surprised that more of the greater, vocal community does not grok this.
I don’t think the issue is a small group of people holding a vision. For me, the issue is that a company changes the vision based on some unknown goals that the company has that are not known to the community. I think it’s disingenuous to paint this as a tyranny of the masses type situation as no one is calling for democracy. And even if they did, Apache and Python are showing successes in that area. If google wanted…
> If google wanted an OSS language, they would have non-google committers
Ian claims "59 Googlers on the committers list and 51 non-Googlers." I was surprised by that too.