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

Go's Sweet 16

go.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 280 posts

Re: Go's Sweet 16

#261

Post by duskwuff »

bayindirh wrote: post #217
duskwuff wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

C/C++ library dependencies are a thing, and there's no universal solution to acquiring and installing them.

The most universal thing in C/C++ is vendoring, IMHO. If you are distributing source, you distribute everything. Then, it only needs a compiler and libc. That vendored package is tested, and it works on your platform, so there's no guesswork.

That might work for small, self-contained dependencies in projects which aren't themselves libraries. But good luck vendoring your deps when one of those deps is something really large like Qt or WebKit, or if you're building a library that other applications need to be able to link against.

Re: Go's Sweet 16

#262

Post by ModernMech »

anal_reactor wrote: post #180
ModernMech wrote: post #51

Oh wow, so it's already been 16 years since Google steamrolled the Go! language, which had existed a decade before Go and had every right to the name. This was when they were still pretending "do no evil" was their brand. There may be no honor amongst thieves but there is honor amongst langdevs, and when they did Go! dirty, Google made clear which one they are. Status changed to Unfortunate https://github.com/golang/…

Go! was clearly a toy language created only for the purpose of writing papers. It has no applications outside academia. Meanwhile Google's golang exists mostly in the sphere of practical use.

Programming languages don't have to be for the purpose of industrial software construction to be considered useful. In fact, many ideas that industrial languages use come from academia. If we want new ideas and new languages to flourish, it cannot be the case that large corporations get a free pass to just smash researchers' academic efforts when they feel like it, especially when their motto at the time was "Do no evil".

Re: Go's Sweet 16

#263

Post by ModernMech »

arccy wrote: post #253
ModernMech wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go and Go! are pronounced the same way, so yes, they're the same. Moreover the author of Go! personally requested that Google not step on his life's work. The man had dedicated a decade and authored a book and several papers on the topic, so it wasn't a close call. Additionally C# built on C++ which built on C. Go had no relationship to Go! at all. Homage and extension are one thing, but Go was not that. A policy of…

They are not pronounced the same, otherwise we wouldn't have the ! in the language.

! changes emphasis, not pronunciation.

Re: Go's Sweet 16

#264

Post by ModernMech »

duskwuff wrote: post #199
MagicMoonlight wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone use that other language? No!

Go! wasn't even published as its own project [1] until 2015, well after Go(lang) was available. It previously existed as an unpublished CVS repository in an obscure Sourceforge project [2]; I can't fault the Go developers for ignoring or overlooking it. You can find a circa-2002 version of Go! in the archived CVS repository of the Sourceforge project, but none of the project's release files appear to contain it. (Ign…

You are wrong, here is the first publication from 2004. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/B:AMAI.0000031195....

Due diligence would have revealed the Go! project in a standard literature review.

I can and will fault the developers because even if they had overlooked it, they were explicitly asked, and declined to do so because they determined (themselves) there would be no confusion. So it wasn't that they overlooked it, or ignored it, they decided they were asked directly and responded "we don't care".

If the reasoning boils down to "We can do this because you are small and we are big" I cannot support that.

Re: Go's Sweet 16

#265

Post by anal_reactor »

ModernMech wrote: post #262
anal_reactor wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go! was clearly a toy language created only for the purpose of writing papers. It has no applications outside academia. Meanwhile Google's golang exists mostly in the sphere of practical use.

Programming languages don't have to be for the purpose of industrial software construction to be considered useful. In fact, many ideas that industrial languages use come from academia. If we want new ideas and new languages to flourish, it cannot be the case that large corporations get a free pass to just smash researchers' academic efforts when they feel like it, especially when their motto at the time was "Do no e…

My point is more that these two occupy two distinct areas. For example, the word "cool" has two very common meanings depending on whether you're talking about temperature of an object or the value of something in social context. Yes, it would be very confusing if "cool" had multiple meanings from the same domain, but that's not the case. Similarly, golang and Go! are terms from different domains. One is domain of practical engineering, and the other is academia.

Re: Go's Sweet 16

#266

Post by morshu9001 »

ezst wrote: post #243
morshu9001 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kotlin's important feature is the cooperative multitasking. Java code has been mangled all these years to work around not having that. I don't think many would justify the switch to Kotlin otherwise.

It's probably an important feature now, but it's a recent one in this context.

Oh true, I thought it was older

Re: Go's Sweet 16

#267

Post by benjiro »

ErroneousBosh wrote: post #255
benjiro wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it also has a advantages that you can literally read a lot of code from other devs without twisting your eyes sideways because everybody has their own style.

Exactly. "This is Go. You write it this way. Not that way. Write it this way and everyone can understand it." I wish I was better at writing Go, because I'm in the middle of writing a massive and complex project in Go with a lot of difficult network stuff. But you know what they say, if you want to eat a whole cow, you just have to pick and end and start eating.

Yep ... its like people never read some of the main dev's motivations. The ability for people to be able to read each others code was a main point.

I don't know but for me a lot of attacks on Go, often come from non-go developers, VERY often Rust devs. When i started Go, it was always Rust devs in /r/programming pushing their agenda as Rust being the next best thing, the whole "rewrite everything in Rust"...

About 10 years ago, learned Rust and these days, i can barely read the code anymore with the tons of new syntax that got added. Its like they forgot the lessons from C++...

Re: Go's Sweet 16

#268

Post by malkia »

ricardobeat wrote: post #226
malkia wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With bazel/buck/pants/etc won't be problem for other major languages.

Have you worked with those before? "Quickly and easily" are not exactly what comes to mind.

Yes, at Google, roughtly 10 years ago - great experience. Recently with my own small projects, and on Windows (where it lacks the same charm... yet - but eventually!)

But yes, I worked - mainly Java (back then) with GWT, some Python, Sawzall, R, some other internal langs.

Re: Go's Sweet 16

#269

Post by vips7L »

deagle50 wrote: post #247
Xeoncross wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) for one-off scripts and 2) If you ignore memory. You can make about anything faster if you provide more memory to store data in more optimized formats. That doesn't make them faster. Part of the problem is that Java in the real world requires an unreasonable number of classes and 3rd party libraries. Even for basic stuff like JSON marshaling. The Java stdlib is just not very useful. Between these two points, all m…

ZGC? It should be on par or better than Go.

Java’s collectors vastly outperform Go’s. Look at the Debian binary tree benchmarks [0]. Go just uses less memory because it’s AOT compiled from the start and Java’s strategy up until recently is to never return memory to the OS. Java programs are typically on servers where it’s the only application running.

[0] https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...

Re: Go's Sweet 16

#270

Post by liveoneggs »

sacado2 wrote: post #258
liveoneggs wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally like Go and appreciate its simplicity and tooling and everything but the example given is "making a folder" and "putting a ... main() func" in it. But, like, this is exactly as easy with every single other language that I can think of. The second part "Running go install at the root ./.." is actually terrible and risky but, still, trivial with make (a - literally - 50 year old program) or shell or just w…

> "making a folder" and "putting a ... main() func" in it You can't do that with python for instance. First, you need a python interpreter on the target machine, and on top of that you need the correct version of the interpreter. If yours is too old or not old enough, things might break. And then, you need to install all the dependencies. The correct version of each, as well. And they might not exist on your system,…

You also need a version of the go compiler, possibly one new enough to handle some //go:magic:comments.

I agree that static linking is great and that python sucks but I was trying to say I can, very easily, mkdir new-py-program/app.py and stick __main__ in it or mkdir new-perl-program/app.pl or mkdir my-new-c-file/main.c etc.

For 2/3 of the above I can even make easy/single executable files go-style.

Post reply on HN