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

The perfect language and why Go still isn't it

snazz.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 139 posts

Re: The perfect language and why Go still isn't it

#91

Post by cpuguy83 »

coldtea wrote: post #59
ypcx wrote: post #39

Well, Go seems to have enabled a new wave of software renaissance - Kubernetes, Docker, you name it - Go seems to have filled the space that Java was too fat for, JavaScript too light for, and C/C++ too difficult/fun-less to use for (which is everything). After 20 years of coding, and having just recently discovered LISP and learned Clojure, I believe the perfect language will be a Clojure compiled to native with the…

> Well, Go seems to have enabled a new wave of software renaissance - Kubernetes, Docker, you name it Let's name it. I wouldn't call either of these a "software renaissance". Docker is a wrapper on top of Linux kernel containers, and Kubernetes is a 10000 pound gorilla on top (and port of a C++ app, some say even through a Java rewrite/transpile to Go). Go was just at the peak of being fashionable at the time (and ha…

Docker was written in go before go was fashionable. It was mainly written in go because it wasn't python or ruby and didn't want to participate in the language wars. K8s is written in Go because Docker was in Go and sharing that dev community made a whole lot of sense.

Re: The perfect language and why Go still isn't it

#92

Post by cpuguy83 »

patientplatypus wrote: post #88

The frustrating thing about Go for me is that it lacks generics but is strictly typed, which encourages the passing of empty interfaces which can cause problems at runtime. You have to be very careful about storing all your data properly in structs or you face a big foot gun. Which, like, fair enough. It's not perfect. But it's still really really good. I mean, people still use Java...

The alternative approach here would be to gernerate code for things that need genetics rather than using empty interface. Of course as with all things there are trade-offs... as there will be if/when generics are introduced.

Re: The perfect language and why Go still isn't it

#93

Post by mrbonner »

ypcx wrote: post #39

Well, Go seems to have enabled a new wave of software renaissance - Kubernetes, Docker, you name it - Go seems to have filled the space that Java was too fat for, JavaScript too light for, and C/C++ too difficult/fun-less to use for (which is everything). After 20 years of coding, and having just recently discovered LISP and learned Clojure, I believe the perfect language will be a Clojure compiled to native with the…

Considering it took you that long to be a Lisp convert, I like to know more on how you came to the see the light. I’ve been doing coding for over 15 years, too. And, every time I tried to pick up a Lisp dialect (Clojure was the last) I couldn’t help but wonder what with all the buzz about this. I really wish that I could see the light someday, though.

Re: The perfect language and why Go still isn't it

#94

Post by hodgesrm »

cygned wrote: post #79

One of Go’s strength is the opinionated nature that makes it easy for me as a developer to read and understand other’s code. It’s trivial to jump into the implementation of the standard API to see how things work.

Simple things like gofmt have helped enormously. Leaving out exceptions and templates have made the code harder to write (for me at least) but easier to read. It's the code equivalent of "schema on write."

Re: The perfect language and why Go still isn't it

#95

Post by asdvxgxasjab »

mijoharas wrote: post #50

Every time I've tried to write some go, I've always started reaching for some things that aren't there (essentially generics). I'm looking forward to go 2.0 and hope the inclusion of generics will make it more pleasant to write. Also, while it's said comically often in HN comments, Rust (and particularly the iterator api) is very pleasing to write. I'd say it sits in quite a sweet spot language-wise. Context, I'm a C…

Curious about your use cases for generics. I write a lot of Go and don't often find myself missing generics. I also used to write a good deal of C++ and didn't find myself often needing templates either.

Re: The perfect language and why Go still isn't it

#96

Post by mhh__ »

pdpi wrote: post #37
alkonaut wrote: post #36

Every language has flaws. Some of the best languages are those that take existing languages and just throw out some of the bad legacy mistakes, making what’s often a slightly different but pretty much objectively “better” language. For example: Kotlin is a better Java in almost every way. The problem with almost all such languages is that they aren’t different enough from their “parent” languages, meaning they strugg…

I think Kotlin has also leapfrogged D on this — Google blessing it for Android use and an Android community clearly hoping for something better than an aeons-old version of Java goes a very long way. The Android success story might just be what the language needs to establish itself enough that it’ll become a backend staple too

Everything has leapfrogged D, solely due to a lack of corporate sponsorship in my view.

I genuinely think D and Rust are the only remotely interesting and/or good systems/non-functional languages around but lifes not a meritocracy.

Re: The perfect language and why Go still isn't it

#97

Post by saganus »

delusional wrote: post #85
ypcx wrote: post #39

Well, Go seems to have enabled a new wave of software renaissance - Kubernetes, Docker, you name it - Go seems to have filled the space that Java was too fat for, JavaScript too light for, and C/C++ too difficult/fun-less to use for (which is everything). After 20 years of coding, and having just recently discovered LISP and learned Clojure, I believe the perfect language will be a Clojure compiled to native with the…

> Java was too fat for I think it should always be mentioned when people call java fat, that the core language is usually fast enough. What makes java "fat" is the mentality of "Frameworks". For me, Go seems like java, but without the fucking frameworks.

I have been wondering for some time now, when exactly is a language "fat" or "light"?

The idea seems to be there and "obvious" in a way, but haven't been able to pinpoint exactly what it is.

Is it a feeling or an actual metric?

e.g. When I work with Java in IntelliJ, things don't feel significantly slower than developing Node in WebStorm. Is it perhaps the way the code looks, in terms of verbosity?

I do agree that frameworks contribute to this feeling of Java, but again, is it because a Spring Boot webserver boots slower than a Node one?

Or maybe, say a Java cli program vs a C++ one. Is it the speed at which things run?

Could it be that, because we know Java uses a VM then it "should" be slower than compiled code and thus it's fatter?

What is that "thing" that makes us determine that a language is fat or light?

Re: The perfect language and why Go still isn't it

#98

Post by lkrubner »

twic wrote: post #75
coldtea wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, Go seems to have enabled a new wave of software renaissance - Kubernetes, Docker, you name it Let's name it. I wouldn't call either of these a "software renaissance". Docker is a wrapper on top of Linux kernel containers, and Kubernetes is a 10000 pound gorilla on top (and port of a C++ app, some say even through a Java rewrite/transpile to Go). Go was just at the peak of being fashionable at the time (and ha…

Docker is a bad design. It is monstrously overcomplicated for what it does. In historico-aesthetic analogies, it's baroque, not renaissance.

And what does it actually give that is new? What does Docker give that you can't get with a normal VM, with Terraform to spin up however many instances that you need? Put an app on an AMI, save it, if you need one instance, or a 1,000 instances, spin them up with Terraform. You get to stick with normal operating systems, such as Linux and Windows. You don't have to learn a bunch of new technologies.

http://www.smashcompany.com/technology/docker-is-a-dangerous...

Re: The perfect language and why Go still isn't it

#99

Post by thanatos_dem »

delusional wrote: post #85
ypcx wrote: post #39

Well, Go seems to have enabled a new wave of software renaissance - Kubernetes, Docker, you name it - Go seems to have filled the space that Java was too fat for, JavaScript too light for, and C/C++ too difficult/fun-less to use for (which is everything). After 20 years of coding, and having just recently discovered LISP and learned Clojure, I believe the perfect language will be a Clojure compiled to native with the…

> Java was too fat for I think it should always be mentioned when people call java fat, that the core language is usually fast enough. What makes java "fat" is the mentality of "Frameworks". For me, Go seems like java, but without the fucking frameworks.

Not just frameworks, but the JVM as well. Having go compile to a reasonably small statically linked binary (which can be shrunk even more by things like UPX if size really matters) is great.

Needing to bring a very large, very complex virtual machine to execute your program adds a lot of “fatness” IMO.

Re: The perfect language and why Go still isn't it

#100

Post by lkrubner »

mrbonner wrote: post #93
ypcx wrote: post #39

Well, Go seems to have enabled a new wave of software renaissance - Kubernetes, Docker, you name it - Go seems to have filled the space that Java was too fat for, JavaScript too light for, and C/C++ too difficult/fun-less to use for (which is everything). After 20 years of coding, and having just recently discovered LISP and learned Clojure, I believe the perfect language will be a Clojure compiled to native with the…

Considering it took you that long to be a Lisp convert, I like to know more on how you came to the see the light. I’ve been doing coding for over 15 years, too. And, every time I tried to pick up a Lisp dialect (Clojure was the last) I couldn’t help but wonder what with all the buzz about this. I really wish that I could see the light someday, though.

Depends where you are coming from. What languages do you work in now? If the language you are working in now has excellent support for concurrency, then that part of Clojure is not going to impress you. Or if you currently work with a language that makes it easy to write DSLs, then that part of Clojure won't impress you.
Post reply on HN