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

Why I Don't Want to Learn Go

arantaday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 139 posts

Re: Why I Don't Want to Learn Go

#51

Post by burgerbrain »

microtonal wrote: post #29
wisty wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SQL isn't, and if it's not a serious language, what is? Perl and PHP are what the web app layer was originally built on, and they seem to be designed to maximize developer efficiency for small projects. Haskell is definitely interesting. If I wanted to build a large system that was super-performant, I'd look at C, Haskell, and Go. I don't know enough to make a great decision, but all three look good. Go has the advan…

SQL isn't, and if it's not a serious language, what is? Perl and PHP are what the web app layer was originally built on, and they seem to be designed to maximize developer efficiency for small projects. I intentionally said most , since, obviously there are serious domain-specific languages. But stating that Go is designed for large code bases, creates a false dichotomy. Go has the advantage of being designed for the…

Calling Perl domain specific? I think those would be considered fighting words in some places. ;)

Re: Why I Don't Want to Learn Go

#52

Post by kibwen »

heretohelp wrote: post #32
groovy2shoes wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you had a look at Clay? http://claylabs.com/clay/

It's the most promising out of the current cohort that includes Rust, I'll say that much. Clay seems to understand that you cannot compromise.

"Clay seems to understand that you cannot compromise."

Perhaps I'm cynical, but having had no experience with Clay this statement fills me with dread. Care to elaborate?

Edit: ah, I see elsewhere you've defined what you mean by "no compromises." Still, I'd be interested in hearing what makes Clay the front-runner in this field if you care to tell. :)

Re: Why I Don't Want to Learn Go

#53

Post by dagw »

leoc wrote: post #49
drats wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Go tries to be as expressive as Python and run as fast as Java Why the seemingly almost complete lack of love for Pypy from Google then? It's not like you can stop using Python anytime soon even if you keep extending Go. I believe Google's made one tiny donation to Pypy. Given their benchmarks ( http://speed.pypy.org/ ) and given Google has literally tens of billions in hard cash lying around I can't see how you can…

I'd guess that C++, Java and NIH are all powerful forces at Google.

Given that Google hired Guido Van Rossum and that python is one of the three (and up until very recently two) supported languages for GAE, I think we can safely assume the Google isn't entirely anti python.

Re: Why I Don't Want to Learn Go

#55

Post by icebraining »

heretohelp wrote: post #40
masklinn wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would imagine that Rust would be fantastic for implementing a database or a web browser or anything else equally complexity-management and performance driven. Yeah that's about what I'd expect considering the language's goals. > Safety is one thing, mandatory safety means a mandatory runtime overhead with a mandatory reduction in control and power over the code which is unacceptable. Rust has the `unsafe` escape…

Then it might work out fine, I don't know. In general I have to work off of their purported goals and priorities to get a feel for where the final destination of the language will be when it's more complete. If they say they aren't going to prioritize machine semantics, C-level runtime performance, or systems-grade control over code generation then I have assume those priorities will fall wayside to the established p…

I'm not saying Rust will "fail" like Go seems to be doing so far

I think it's way too early to tell if Go is failing or not; it was announced less than three years ago. How successful was, e.g. , Ruby in '98?

Re: Why I Don't Want to Learn Go

#56

Post by jbooth »

The thing with Go is, it's really easy to write your critical path in C and then write the other 95% of the code in Go and not have to deal with crap like null-terminated strings and a lack of built-in data structures.

Go has better integration with C than any other language I've seen.

Re: Why I Don't Want to Learn Go

#57

Post by markokocic »

jrockway wrote: post #7

Go is designed for large codebases, which is a problem that the author may not have, and so he may not see the benefits. One key feature is that the Go compiler itself is the style guide: it automatically reformats your code to remove style guide violations. This makes it easy to work on a codebase the size of Google's because everything looks like it was written by the same person. We try to do the same thing for C+…

> Go is designed for large codebases, which is a problem that the author may not have, and so he may not see the benefits.

If Go is really designed for large code bases, then IDE support for go with code browsing, refactoring, debugging and profiling would be developed in parallel with the Go language itself.

Since Go IDE support go only as far as petty Vim and even pettier Emacs modes, I couldn't call go "made for large codebases".

Re: Why I Don't Want to Learn Go

#58

Post by asdfasdf4321 »

Well, this seems like an 'informed opinion' without any actual sources.

http://people.cs.umass.edu/~emery/pubs/gcvsmalloc.pdf

"In particular, when garbage collection has five times as much memory as required, its runtime performance matches or slightly exceeds that of explicit memory management"

Re: Why I Don't Want to Learn Go

#59

Post by stdbrouw »

drats wrote: post #47
jrockway wrote: post #7

Go is designed for large codebases, which is a problem that the author may not have, and so he may not see the benefits. One key feature is that the Go compiler itself is the style guide: it automatically reformats your code to remove style guide violations. This makes it easy to work on a codebase the size of Google's because everything looks like it was written by the same person. We try to do the same thing for C+…

>Go tries to be as expressive as Python and run as fast as Java Why the seemingly almost complete lack of love for Pypy from Google then? It's not like you can stop using Python anytime soon even if you keep extending Go. I believe Google's made one tiny donation to Pypy. Given their benchmarks ( http://speed.pypy.org/ ) and given Google has literally tens of billions in hard cash lying around I can't see how you can…

(1) Google spent lots of developer resources on Unladen Swallow, which ended up not giving the speed increases they expected, but that's another story.

(2) Last thing I heard, Google's trying to minimize their Python usage in favor of Java.

Re: Why I Don't Want to Learn Go

#60

Post by heretohelp »

kibwen wrote: post #52
heretohelp wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the most promising out of the current cohort that includes Rust, I'll say that much. Clay seems to understand that you cannot compromise.

"Clay seems to understand that you cannot compromise." Perhaps I'm cynical, but having had no experience with Clay this statement fills me with dread. Care to elaborate? Edit: ah, I see elsewhere you've defined what you mean by "no compromises." Still, I'd be interested in hearing what makes Clay the front-runner in this field if you care to tell. :)

The funniest and most succinct reply I can muster for you is that Clay is the programming language least designed for quiche-eaters.

I leave it to your Google skills to get the cultural context for that. :)

Post reply on HN