41–50 of 169 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Don't ever try Scala. Don't ever try C++. I work on a medium-sized low-level C++ application, and every time we need to compile from scratch it takes over two hours on a single core. Even with distributing the compilation out across over a hundred cores the fastest it can get down to is around 20 minutes.
Just try Nim. It is fast.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't ever try Scala. I work on a mid-sized CRUD application, and everything we need to recompile from scratch it takes 10 minutes. Typescript and Go are amazing in comparison in that department, but I miss the stronger typing of Scala.
How many lines/files/classes split over how many targets for that 10 minute build? I just compiled around 240k lines of scala split over around 200 gradle subprojects with gradle 6.5rc1 and scalac 2.12.11. Limited to 10 gradle workers. Took 4 minutes without the gradle build cache enabled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that these kind of experiments contributed to Java generics, being made available 3 years before Go 1.0 was given a green light. Which is why Go had already a good example to learn from on how not to do language design.
Are you suggesting all new typed languages have generics? What makes you so sure there isn't room in the design space for a typed language without generics? As much as I like generics, Go's popularity is a success: programmers have spoken, and they value other things more than generics. Hindsight is 20/20, and even this isn't a commitment to introduce generics in Go.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't ever try Scala. I work on a mid-sized CRUD application, and everything we need to recompile from scratch it takes 10 minutes. Typescript and Go are amazing in comparison in that department, but I miss the stronger typing of Scala.
>Don't ever try Scala. Don't ever try C++. I work on a medium-sized low-level C++ application, and every time we need to compile from scratch it takes over two hours on a single core. Even with distributing the compilation out across over a hundred cores the fastest it can get down to is around 20 minutes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Don't ever try Scala. Don't ever try C++. I work on a medium-sized low-level C++ application, and every time we need to compile from scratch it takes over two hours on a single core. Even with distributing the compilation out across over a hundred cores the fastest it can get down to is around 20 minutes.
Just try Nim. It is fast.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Don't ever try Scala. Don't ever try C++. I work on a medium-sized low-level C++ application, and every time we need to compile from scratch it takes over two hours on a single core. Even with distributing the compilation out across over a hundred cores the fastest it can get down to is around 20 minutes.
Don't ever try Rust.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just try Nim. It is fast.
Nim also supports fancy compile-time metaprogramming and templates. What does it do to make itself compile faster than C++ and Scala?
- "module" system based around textual inclusion of header file: essentially the compiler duplicates a lot of effort, reading the same files over and over for each translation unit, and you can't avoid the cost because of the interaction with text macros. That said, C++20 offers a solution through its new module system; it will be interesting to see how much of an improvement this will bring.
- complicated parser requiring contextual information (i.e. information from typing and analysis phases) in order to distinguish between, say, a class object instantiation and function forward declaration (the notorious most vexing parse). Most other languages learned from the syntax mistakes of C++, but C++ had a clear mandate to not break existing C code, so it had no choice but to build what existed.
- C++ template system revolves around a kind of syntactic substitution, where you have a template expression with some type variable, and at the template instantiation site (i.e. every call, not at the definition) you you essentially do template argument deduction yielding concrete type bindings for the type variables, and then your next step is the transform the AST with the template expressions into concrete types, functions, etc. This involves a lot of tree transformations which can be expensive. I think with other languages this is less of a problem in part because the type checking is done at the definition site, rather than at call site. Here again C++ concepts were introduced to address this issue, but as always in C++, it's not all milk and honey.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you suggesting all new typed languages have generics? What makes you so sure there isn't room in the design space for a typed language without generics? As much as I like generics, Go's popularity is a success: programmers have spoken, and they value other things more than generics. Hindsight is 20/20, and even this isn't a commitment to introduce generics in Go.
"programmers have spoken, and they"...'ve done quite a lot of work to get the benefits of generics without language support. You can pretty much look at any large Go project (famously Kubernetes) and see a workaround of some shape or form.
If I had to write a list of “tools I would have preferred to have”:
1. Perfect serialization libraries - Serde is the gold standard here, and IIRC the macro system from Rust is as important a part of it as the traits part.
2. Mutability of types in shared caches - to build efficient controller patterns you need fast and efficient caches - an immutable type that protects against mutation would have saved a lot of ugly mutation testing code
3. Client library definitions shared across types - we could have reduced a fair amount of boilerplate with generics, although most bugs are in the serialization part these days as types evolve
But most of these are dwarfed by the need to scale reviewer time across hundreds of people submitting PRs that change fundamentals of the code. The simplicity of Go and ability to review stupid, obvious, absolutely critical code is the reason why I love it.
Having a strong way to reduce cleverness has been a godsend. It doesn’t mean cleverness is bad, or I don’t want more tools in Go. But I appreciate that aspect of Go in a way that others may not.
Edit: I have been watching kube-rs mature, but to get the same level of scale and performance we’d have to reproduce the shared index informers and that’s a lot of drudge work to get right. That’s one place where someone motivated could really help Rust become a first place way to extend Kubernetes, which would be exciting.
The irony of going back to Featherweight Java, done in 2001. At least some work is being done, even if "This is the beginning of the story, not the end".
Go is a popular language. A common criticism is lack of generics. Go has sought advice from the type theory community. This is the result. What alternative for Go do you know of that doesn't involve going back to 2001 technology?
> " We haven't yet found a design that gives value proportionate to the complexity, although we continue to think about it."
I mean if you are going to use 2001 technology, you could have found it long back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't ever try Rust.
I haven’t used Rust on any significantly sized project. Could you elaborate? Is it only slow to compile release builds?