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

Go is amazing, period.

poincare101.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 241 posts

Re: Go is amazing, period.

#141

Post by nakkiel »

joe_the_user wrote: post #40

Hmm, The complaint I see here seem to be about c/c++ libraries. TL;DR; c is too level and boost sucks (ie, is too complexified). Go sounds like one fine answer to this. I would claim that c++ with QT is another answer to this. Write parsers for DSLs quickly and easily with QT - its container classes work without nightmarish overtemplating, its string class is like an ordinary class, etc.

That's funny. On my resumé, I always word it as "C++/Qt" because C++ with Qt is no more complicated than Python for most things (well at least it was so a couple of years ago).

Re: Go is amazing, period.

#142

Post by adgar »

lusr wrote: post #99
j45 wrote: post #8

A lot of great and capable languages are overlooked. The question is how do they overcome the opinion, hearsay and preferences that are louder than the truth? Too few devs: - truly give something 5 minutes before jumping to their foregone conclusion. - admit that most languages with a decent capable and decent programmer are all, pretty equally equipped. - every language + framework has it's pros and cons.

5 minutes isn't fair. I took a look at http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=al... first. OK so Go is about on par with Mono's C# performance and uses up to a 1/3 of the memory with code that is more concise. That's cool because it means I'm not sacrificing anything over the platform I specialize in (C#; although the last time I looked at the Alioth C# code I thought I saw some obvious improvement…

It seems you deleted your comment asking why you were downvoted. Here's why you were downvoted:

> Way more than 5 minutes. Where are generics or do I have to learn some new construct? Wait a minute, is this thing object oriented or what? If not, why not? Do I have to learn some new philosophy? Already feeling a sense of dread having been through this game 10s of times before with other languages.

If you didn't get past the fact that Go isn't object oriented, then you clearly didn't get very far into the language. And your resistance to "some new philosophy" shows you aren't interested in a new language with real ideas, but at most a different way to express what you already know and do while programming.

Re: Go is amazing, period.

#143

Post by jbarham »

icebraining wrote: post #140
enneff wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really nice. You can build your Go program, deploy it as a single binary and it just runs. No need to hide it behind nginx or some other dedicated web server. The Go http package is DoS hardened and very fast. It's refreshing how little mechanism there is.

No need to hide it behind nginx or some other dedicated web server. So, how do you serve static files?

> So, how do you serve static files?

http://weekly.golang.org/pkg/net/http/#FileServer

Re: Go is amazing, period.

#144

Post by rplnt »

joe_the_user wrote: post #40

Hmm, The complaint I see here seem to be about c/c++ libraries. TL;DR; c is too level and boost sucks (ie, is too complexified). Go sounds like one fine answer to this. I would claim that c++ with QT is another answer to this. Write parsers for DSLs quickly and easily with QT - its container classes work without nightmarish overtemplating, its string class is like an ordinary class, etc.

I've used glib for some "string and network stuff" with C and was quite happy.

http://developer.gnome.org/glib/2.30/

Re: Go is amazing, period.

#145

Post by jaimzob »

rian wrote: post #31

i truly believe go contributes negative work to society. it's basically C/C++/Java/C# with syntactic sugar except it's different enough to get bored programmers to waste their precious time reporting all their code. if you want to learn a new language, actually learn a new language. learn a language that's actually breaking the mold in terms of how we communicate with computers. think at a higher abstraction level th…

Agreed. I've looked at Go quite a bit and I can't figure out what new problems it solves, or how it solves existing problems better than previous procedural/OOP languages. How is better than 'D' for example. How is it better than Java?

If you want a fresh look at systems programming then leaning Ocaml or Haskell would be a much better option because you will learn to solve problems in a new way, not just with slightly different syntax.

Also, someone on this thread doesn't understand how downvoting works. If you disagree with something then make a response, save downvotes for deliberately trollish or off-topic comments.

Re: Go is amazing, period.

#146

Post by lusr »

adgar wrote: post #142
lusr wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

5 minutes isn't fair. I took a look at http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=al... first. OK so Go is about on par with Mono's C# performance and uses up to a 1/3 of the memory with code that is more concise. That's cool because it means I'm not sacrificing anything over the platform I specialize in (C#; although the last time I looked at the Alioth C# code I thought I saw some obvious improvement…

It seems you deleted your comment asking why you were downvoted. Here's why you were downvoted: > Way more than 5 minutes. Where are generics or do I have to learn some new construct? Wait a minute, is this thing object oriented or what? If not, why not? Do I have to learn some new philosophy? Already feeling a sense of dread having been through this game 10s of times before with other languages. If you didn't get pa…

It was no longer relevant and seemed to attract more downvotes. I have spent years with x86 + MIPS assembly language, C, C++, C#, Visual Basic and Q[uick]BASIC; months with Java, Scheme, Python, PHP; days/weeks with AS3, HaXE, Erlang, Scala, E, Objective-C, Ruby, Delphi, Pascal, Concurrent Clean, Prolog, ADA. I've probably missed a few.

My point is (a) I'm not a lazy developer that doesn't enjoy learning new things or experimenting with new languages and (b) I have found a great ecosystem in .NET and C# and I've been around the block; at first sight I simply cannot see a compelling reason to invest more of my increasingly limited time into learning Go.

If Go has great new vision or compelling difference from other languages then why isn't it there on the homepage at golang.org jumping out at me? All I see are technical details and a huge guide. While I applaud clear, detailed documentation, I'm not going to read through that documentation unless I have some idea of the payoff. I just spent half of my weekend researching and investigating a ton of message brokers for my current project because there's value in the outcome. Researching a new programming language needs to have a huge payoff, or I need to have lots of free time (which unfortunately I don't).

There is absolutely nothing to sell me on the language on the homepage, or in the OP's blog post, and nothing to distinguish it from the 10s of other new languages out there. The FAQ touches on the fact that e.g. it's not object-oriented but not WHY. It just mentions "interfaces" and says "we believe". So I'll have to go and play with it and build something substantial to find out what they might be talking about. The goals mentioned in the FAQ are really not interesting (have you read it?) - perhaps the ideas around concurrency are convenient but they are limited in scope and don't directly address the more complex concurrency issues better than my current platform that I'm facing while I build a web crawler.

To be clear once again: It may be that Go is absolutely amazing and awesome... but if I had to spent days looking into every new language that pops up on the Internet I would never get anything done, and this is the point I was trying to convey in response to the parent's post. It's still on my list to look into but I just don't have a week to commit to what looks like quite a lot to manually digest.

Re: Go is amazing, period.

#147

Post by jwr »

Support for Unicode as a groundbreaking language feature? Closures (and first-class functions) as a major achievement?

I don't want to sound smug, so I won't mention any languages I'm comparing to — but seriously, unless you've been living in Python-land, those things are nothing to write home about. I'm surprised this is getting so many upvotes.

If I were to praise Go, I would concentrate on something innovative — concurrency primitives are interesting, for instance. I would not consider them sufficient for all applications, but they are intriguing and worth discussing.

Re: Go is amazing, period.

#148

Post by [deleted] »

lclarkmichalek wrote: post #139
stiff wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to expect a really detailed analysis from someone still in high school. On the other hand, it is good to see how the various languages look like from a fresh perspective of someone with relatively little preconceptions from years of using C/C++/Python/whatever. After all, if he has lots of problems with writing something in C++, but much less when writing it in Go, it probably means lots of us had at some p…

Please, ignore people's age, it makes people in high school much happier. From someone in highschool (or the UK equivalent), the age anonymity of the internet is one of it's greatest strengths. I think he'll still have to learn a fair few tricks to get around some features of Go. Things like type assertions, float32 vs float64, get ready for it lack of generics, and no distinction between stack and heap aren't common…

[deleted]

Re: Go is amazing, period.

#149

Post by [deleted] »

lusr wrote: post #99
j45 wrote: post #8

A lot of great and capable languages are overlooked. The question is how do they overcome the opinion, hearsay and preferences that are louder than the truth? Too few devs: - truly give something 5 minutes before jumping to their foregone conclusion. - admit that most languages with a decent capable and decent programmer are all, pretty equally equipped. - every language + framework has it's pros and cons.

5 minutes isn't fair. I took a look at http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64q/benchmark.php?test=al... first. OK so Go is about on par with Mono's C# performance and uses up to a 1/3 of the memory with code that is more concise. That's cool because it means I'm not sacrificing anything over the platform I specialize in (C#; although the last time I looked at the Alioth C# code I thought I saw some obvious improvement…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN