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

The Borgo Programming Language

borgo-lang.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 204 posts

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#121

Post by skinkestek »

neonsunset wrote: post #116
skinkestek wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you have to deal with: - .Net devs (they are almost as annoying as us Java/Kotlin devs) - a language and ecosystem that consistently sacrifice backwards compatibility (contrary to us who have features sacrificed for backwards compatibility at every single step) - you have to live without the JVM ecosystem (on this I have no self deprecating comment, C# is a better language, but the ecosystem, from libraries to b…

“Contrary to us”? I can’t agree with this attitude. .NET maintains excellent backwards compatibility, C# and F# even more so. The changes either affect frameworks and libraries, which you can often update independently or are easily addressed. Most projects since .NET 5 only ever had to bump the target version and rebuild to move forward (notable exception: in .NET 6 ASP.NET Core introduced simplified API for applica…

Yes, I'm talking about the platform, not the syntax.

It is my feeling that .Net developers with some years of experience get wide eyed when I tell them how I can use any old library that I need together with the newest JVM and my platform upgrades have mostly consisted of bumping numbers.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#122

Post by neonsunset »

skinkestek wrote: post #121
neonsunset wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Contrary to us”? I can’t agree with this attitude. .NET maintains excellent backwards compatibility, C# and F# even more so. The changes either affect frameworks and libraries, which you can often update independently or are easily addressed. Most projects since .NET 5 only ever had to bump the target version and rebuild to move forward (notable exception: in .NET 6 ASP.NET Core introduced simplified API for applica…

Yes, I'm talking about the platform, not the syntax. It is my feeling that .Net developers with some years of experience get wide eyed when I tell them how I can use any old library that I need together with the newest JVM and my platform upgrades have mostly consisted of bumping numbers.

I don't know which developers you talked to. Honestly I should just flag this reply probably.

It's nothing surprising in .NET land. If you target netstandard2.0 the library will work on any version from .NET Framework 4.6.1 and upwards. For many newer features there are compat and polyfill pacakges too - that's one of the strengths to be able to use them even on the older targets.

All newer targets are forward compatible anyway. Wherever the notion of otherwise comes from it is likely a misunderstanding or trolling.

You can't make a serious argument when comparing baseline experience where .NET confidently places next to Cargo and Golang's user experience with the level of productivity it provides for setting up and managing projects and dependencies, building them and distributing them. JVM ecosystem still does not offer capability to properly and easily package the applications into a single binary except using very restrictive GraalVMs Native Image which does not have as wide ecosystem support as NativeAOT enjoys, and where it does not work .NET still gives you the ability to bundle managed assemblies into an executable together with runtime, apply trimming and get relatively compact result.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#124

Post by skinkestek »

neonsunset wrote: post #122
skinkestek wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I'm talking about the platform, not the syntax. It is my feeling that .Net developers with some years of experience get wide eyed when I tell them how I can use any old library that I need together with the newest JVM and my platform upgrades have mostly consisted of bumping numbers.

I don't know which developers you talked to. Honestly I should just flag this reply probably. It's nothing surprising in .NET land. If you target netstandard2.0 the library will work on any version from .NET Framework 4.6.1 and upwards. For many newer features there are compat and polyfill pacakges too - that's one of the strengths to be able to use them even on the older targets. All newer targets are forward compat…

> I don't know which developers you talked to. Honestly I should just flag this reply probably.

I think you should read up on the guidelines before abusing the flagging system as a way to punish someone you disagree with.

Anyway, I am out of here.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#125

Post by chamomeal »

throwup238 wrote: post #10
kjksf wrote: post #6

I love it. This is a language that everyone here says they want but no one will use, even though it's stable and mature (I assume because it compiles to stable and mature Go and can use every existing Go library). It hits all the "ok, Go is popular but made by morons for morons and if only it had this X advanced feature, it would be totally great". It has immutability. It has advanced enums. It has algebraic types. I…

I think it’d do a lot better with Rust fans than Go fans, to be honest. It may not he as safe or whatever but Rust build times are brutal for larger projects and their ecosystems are mature enough to be comparable. It’d be even more useful with a Rust/Borgo interop layer but I bet that’d be really complicated.

That’s me!

I like languages that can be compiled, I like modern type systems. Rust is neat but my occasional dabbling hasn’t yielded much productivity. Go has too many icky bits.

Borgo? I will definitely be trying it out!!

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#126

Post by erik_seaberg »

desumeku wrote: post #120
pjmlp wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Java compiles to native code for two decades now, it has always been a matter of how much one was willing to pay for a commercial JDK. “The key point here is our programmers are Googlers, they’re not researchers. They’re typically, fairly young, fresh out of school, probably learned Java, maybe learned C or C++, probably learned Python. They’re not capable of understanding a brilliant language but we want to use them…

"We hire working-class college graduates from the normal population, and not ivy league graduates who have the time to waste on unproductive academic research languages that see no industrial use." Is this what is so damning about Go? The constant reposting of this quote as some sort of attack on Go's validity and reputation reeks of nothing but classism.

Google is famous for tough interviews and accepting a small fraction of applicants. I was impressed with everyone I met, and Pike's "incapable" statement was baseless and insulting.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#127

Post by onefiveone »

erik_seaberg wrote: post #126
desumeku wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We hire working-class college graduates from the normal population, and not ivy league graduates who have the time to waste on unproductive academic research languages that see no industrial use." Is this what is so damning about Go? The constant reposting of this quote as some sort of attack on Go's validity and reputation reeks of nothing but classism.

Google is famous for tough interviews and accepting a small fraction of applicants. I was impressed with everyone I met, and Pike's "incapable" statement was baseless and insulting.

> Pike's "incapable" statement was baseless and insulting.

"incapable" != "never capable", especially when talking about fresh college graduates.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#129

Post by codr7 »

desumeku wrote: post #120
pjmlp wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Java compiles to native code for two decades now, it has always been a matter of how much one was willing to pay for a commercial JDK. “The key point here is our programmers are Googlers, they’re not researchers. They’re typically, fairly young, fresh out of school, probably learned Java, maybe learned C or C++, probably learned Python. They’re not capable of understanding a brilliant language but we want to use them…

"We hire working-class college graduates from the normal population, and not ivy league graduates who have the time to waste on unproductive academic research languages that see no industrial use." Is this what is so damning about Go? The constant reposting of this quote as some sort of attack on Go's validity and reputation reeks of nothing but classism.

The complaint is that it was designed for lesser brains and lacks many features professionals expect, and that's pretty much an objective truth.

Re: The Borgo Programming Language

#130

Post by riwsky »

pjmlp wrote: post #89
nine_k wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's a way of writing a better language while using Go libraries extensively. The same way Kotlin is a way of writing a better language while using Java libraries extensively.

The difference is that JVM community welcomes languages PhD folks. There is even the JVM Languages Summit. Unthinkable in Go ecosystem.

Are we just ignoring when they invited Philip “Featherweight Java” Wadler to help them design Go generics? https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11710

Or that Robert Griesemer literally is a language PhD, whose thesis was supervised by a little fellow by the name of “Niklaus Wirth”?

https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/handle/20.500.11850/...

Post reply on HN