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

Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

changelog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 135 posts

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#51

Post by coldtea »

eloff wrote: post #35
mattcaldwell wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except the Go scheduler is actually pretty complex and really good at what it does...

The language is simple, the implementation is anything but.

From everything I've read, by people versed in compilers, the implementation is pretty basic too (regarding optimizations, shortcuts, compiler design, etc).

In fact, the Go core team themselves have said time and again that they preferred simple implementations and implementation convenience over more powerful but complex ones...

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#52

Post by baby »

meddlepal wrote: post #5
arcticbull wrote: post #2

Step 1: be rob pike. Step 2: invent a pretty basic programming language using your old compiler from Plan 9 while at google. Step 3: be rob pike. ^_^

Pretty much this, the only reason anyone gave Go any attention was: 1. The pedigree of the creators 2. Google's developer marketing And now we are stuck with it thanks to traction.

I feel people gave Golang attention because it was a good language. It also has the best standard library I’ve ever seen.

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#53

Post by coldtea »

dilyevsky wrote: post #34
pjmlp wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being basically a copy of Limbo with Oberon-2 method syntax, although we are a bit further than 1992, to start with. And while at it, offering less features as Algol used to have.

Offering less features was literally their goal in which they succeeded

Doesn't change the fact that it can be called "basic" for that...

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#54

Post by AnimalMuppet »

catach wrote: post #24
kache_ wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The basic-ness of golang is the best part about it.

It's possible that a huge marketing advantage kept people interested long enough to come to appreciate the benefits of the langauge's basic nature.

I see very little marketing for Go. Compare, for example, to C# when in came out, or Java when it did.

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#55

Post by ramchip »

Thaxll wrote: post #50
minxomat wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, Crystal would be my next go-to. If you have never written Ruby (like me) the appeal isn't the Ruby-like syntax, it's just a reasonable syntax with a very pragmatic type system and niceties (like classes, which are more open to hacking / composition than in other languages). It's like Go++ in my mind.

Crystal is dead, exactly how can you expect to have a language that compete with Go with only 2 full time devs?

Does it have to “beat” Go or die?

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#56

Post by pcwalton »

coldtea wrote: post #51
eloff wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The language is simple, the implementation is anything but.

From everything I've read, by people versed in compilers, the implementation is pretty basic too (regarding optimizations, shortcuts, compiler design, etc). In fact, the Go core team themselves have said time and again that they preferred simple implementations and implementation convenience over more powerful but complex ones...

The Go implementation has gotten more sophisticated over time. It now has an optimizing SSA backend, a rather intricate GC, etc. I still disagree with a fair number of the Go implementation design decisions, but I certainly wouldn't call the compiler a basic implementation anymore.

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#57

Post by AnimalMuppet »

jayd16 wrote: post #12
Thaxll wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where exactly Google marketed the language, please gave us any example.

They talk about it at Google IO, for example.

Go only has the use that it does because of Google marketing, which the only examples given are talks at Google IO? Google has the most efficient marketing team in the world, to have done that much with that little effort...

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#58

Post by dev_dull »

weberc2 wrote: post #41
catach wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible that a huge marketing advantage kept people interested long enough to come to appreciate the benefits of the langauge's basic nature.

I was drawn to Go because it was the only language at the time (or the only one I came across) that allowed me to build and package software without learning a domain specific language and imperatively stitching together my own build system (looking at you, CMake and Gradle). Basically I want to focus on writing my program, not writing programs to build my program. Go let me run “go build”, and everything Just Worked…

The building and deploying of Go code is refreshingly easy.

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#60

Post by bjornjaja »

moocowtruck wrote: post #33

are basic languages good though? the amount of go concurrency bugs I've dealt with has been outstanding and quite brutal over the last few years; I feel like many times the same sort of c "i dont make mistakes" programmers are attracted to go and they also don't make mistakes there as well...

The problem creating a language that “anyone can get started with quickly” has the problem that it invites a host of people who have limited idea how concurrency, among other things, works. It’s important to understand C++ for that very reason is historical significance and how a system actually works underneath.

I think there’s a general gap in people’s knowledge as a lot of people just clock in but don’t read about stuff beyond what’s required “to get the job done.”

Post reply on HN