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

61–70 of 135 posts

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#61

Post by binarycrusader »

pcwalton wrote: post #56
coldtea wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Having worked on the Go port for SPARC with another person (don't know if it was ever completed), I have to agree with the parent here. The implementation of Go itself (based on 1.5-1.8 when I worked on it) was actually very complex. Large swaths of the codebase were completely uncommented and much of the knowledge about how the system is intended to work resides in the heads of the core Go team.

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#62

Post by coldtea »

pcwalton wrote: post #56
coldtea wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Today, perhaps. But wasn't it the case for up until 1.3 or 1.5 that a lot of corners were cut, and things were much simpler than most "commercial grade" compilers (and not just in the simple = cleaner way, but also in the lacking sense).

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#63

Post by kccqzy »

baby wrote: post #52
meddlepal wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Like a standard library that doesn't even have a max function for integers, or a set type?

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#64

Post by jonahx »

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?

Looking at their homepage it seems far from dead.

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#65

Post by ci5er »

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...

Oh, come on, that's not fair.

After I did a million lines in C (way back when), I still made mistakes (but fewer! still: not none!), but I had built better tooling and processes to help me find them earlier.

I was (as you say) attracted to Go, but with less accumulated tooling, the bugs take longer to find (that, and playing around with CSP, I guess, which is my own damn fault).

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#68

Post by TallGuyShort »

eddieh wrote: post #42
rcoveson wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What an ironic comment on an article whose subject is a massive, free, open-source piece of "content."

You know it's "free as in freedom, not beer," right?

I can send you Go binaries. Name your price.

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#69

Post by TallGuyShort »

kache_ wrote: post #10
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. ^_^

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

Shows me the power of a good standard library. Such a light weight language, but so many tasks that require third-party libraries in other languages are built right in with equally light weight interfaces.
Post reply on HN