Eleven Years of Go

Post by cft » Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 4:12 AM UTC

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #116

_wldu wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I very much agree with this. Rust is to C++ what Go is to Java. I think the fact that Go compiles to native binaries and can be linked statically are the primary reasons it is often compared to system languages like Rust or C++. But really, it's not the same type of language.

Rust fundamentally improves C++ with memory safety and allegedly provably correct concurrency. It is a vastly different set of assumptions, design, and opinions than C++. What does Go do to fundamentally deviate from Java? IMO it is basically the same space with a few different opinions. It has GC, is C-style, a more modern stdlib than C/C++.

Post by avery42 » Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 4:43 AM UTC

avinassh wrote: post #118

andreygrehov wrote: post #5

If anyone is interested in playing with generics in Go, here you go: https://go2goplay.golang.org/ https://go2goplay.golang.org/p/mUWfsZPHs5h

Is it possible to compile my local Go code with generics?

Post by xedrac » Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 4:59 AM UTC

AtlasBarfed wrote: post #116

_wldu wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I very much agree with this. Rust is to C++ what Go is to Java. I think the fact that Go compiles to native binaries and can be linked statically are the primary reasons it is often compared to system languages like Rust or C++. But really, it's not the same type of language.

Rust fundamentally improves C++ with memory safety and allegedly provably correct concurrency. It is a vastly different set of assumptions, design, and opinions than C++. What does Go do to fundamentally deviate from Java? IMO it is basically the same space with a few different opinions. It has GC, is C-style, a more modern stdlib than C/C++.

Post by nullc » Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 5:54 AM UTC

nine_k wrote: post #117

tensor wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The simpler the language the better it is for complex code. Heavy abstractions won't help another reader of your code understand what's going on. In most cases it means it will take them much longer to understand. Concise code with heavy abstraction can help eliminate errors, but it definitely doesn't make reading it easier. It also doesn't make solving problems any easier. Solving problems is all about algorithms an…

I suggest you try and implement some complex but well-defined algorithm, e.g. sha256, in some very, very simple language, say, brainfuck (which is very close to the original Turing machine language). Or, more realistically, in PDP11 assembly, which is beautifully transparent and uniform. You might then notice that there is some kind of sweet spot in complexity: fewer features and footguns than, say, C++, but more fea…

Post by threentaway » Wed, Nov 11, 2020, 6:09 AM UTC

djstein wrote: post #126

michaelcampbell wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having used it some, and watched others use it more, I'm struck by the commonality that the most steadfast adherents of the language confuse typing with productivity; "The code flies from my fingers!" Well, sure, but the code I don't need to write in the first place because of well used and vetted libraries, or higher level abstractions, is pretty cool too. It just isn't as keyboard clackyclacky.

This is how I feel. I need to deploy applications not rewrite Django/Rails/Spring/etc (and all the associating tooling) for the hundredth time. The performance boost argument is a joke when we have horizontal scaling and and multithreading.