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

How We Went from 30 Servers to 2: Go

blog.iron.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 511 posts

Re: How We Went from 30 Servers to 2: Go

#181

Post by rektide »

jaggederest wrote: post #153
rektide wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm very sympathetic to your tech-on-tech-on-tech-on-tech hogwashery promulgated by open sourcers & vendors prosteltyzing their wonderful solutions and the other acculturation factors that permits developers approaches other than trying & seeing & exploring- That said, you are wrong. I'm not a Go user and I don't care for it, but Go is fundamentally different and better than most runtimes. Go has it's own green threa…

Ia, Ia, Erlang Ftagn! I agree though, I just wish that Go would have developed from Erlang as a runtime. The Erlang virtual machine and systems are beautiful things - I used them for some wire-level work on a project and bitfields are awesome, and it provided a clean interface to a more 'normal' language to display to the user, fail-fast fault tolerance on a public safety project, neat stuff. It's just erlang-the-pro…

Per your queueing, I'll toss in the Elixer chip- http://elixir-lang.org/ - it's a rather rote, boring, routine language that we all can be semi familiar with, with some aberrations carried over - pattern matched dispatch is still there, for example, making people wonder wtc. The web-page highlights it's advancements, it's "features," which is mildly amusing to me in that the biggest draw is that it's an Erlang that feels familiar to us Algol-derived unwashed/don't-know-anything-but hordes.

Kind of as a foil to that normality, it's similarly remarkable to me that the Prolog asserted-messages/facts & reactive processing cycle of Erlang isn't itself better captured and shown off. It's kind of a middle stage introductory tutorial, after you've made it threw guarded dispatches, yet by itself I think it'd make a great "start with the hard stuff" intro-tutorial to Erlang, and I haven't really seen it presented independently, firstly.

Re: How We Went from 30 Servers to 2: Go

#182

Post by lateefj »

donebizkit wrote: post #17

Last month I picked NodeJS and build couple of sites with it. This month, I want to pick up something new. I was hesitating between Python and Go. Can you answer couple of questions about Go from someone coming from NodeJS: 1- What is the state of the external Go libraries, especially DB (MySql), caching libraries (memcached), protocol libraries (Oauth). Are they stable 100% 2- How easy is logging and tracing in go?…

Python and Go are my languages of choice. I have found both share a the philosophy of less typing is more and more standard library is more. For web apps I have found Python has everything I can think of and more as far as third party libraries. Go package management and deployment once I got it I wondered how I could ever live without it. 1 - SQL is supported by Go specifically MySQL has a couple of drivers to choose from. After using sqlalchemy [1] everything else I have ever used just seemed like the dark ages. 2 - Go logging is standard and has been a couple third party options depending on your tastes. Tracing I think you mean stack is pretty amazing when my app crashes it is as easy to debug as any VM (JVM, Python VM or Ruby VM).

Python gives me a lot of choices based on the type of application I am building monolithic (DJango) or light (Bottle) and many package management and environment setup tasks (as with Rails, Java nightmares ect). Go on the other hand takes care of all the package management and environment setup almost non existent. YMMV good luck. [1] http://www.sqlalchemy.org/

Re: How We Went from 30 Servers to 2: Go

#183

Post by drivebyacct2 »

TakeTwo wrote: post #68

"We decided to rewrite the API" and now it is over 300x faster. Go had nothing to do with this, it was obviously some boneheaded original design. Probably something like fork+exec on a Ruby VM on each request to enter a chroot. I know HN has a hard-on for Go but come on.

Are you the same asshole making throwaways to shit on all of the Go postings or are there actually more than one of you going around making assumptions, accusations and spreading falsehoods about Go.

I can't get over how pathetic it is to make a throwaway for that comment, I'm more embarrassed five people validated your comment and attitude.

Re: How We Went from 30 Servers to 2: Go

#184

Post by wildmXranat »

shurcooL wrote: post #20

> "We also weren't sure if we would be able hire top talent if we chose Go, but we soon found out that we could get top talent because we chose Go." I feel[1] that a smart/talented C/C++/anything developer can go from someone who has never seen or heard of golang to a proficient and productive Go developer in a matter of a few weeks, maybe even _days_, if not less. That's how long it takes to go through the following…

Thanks for the links man.

Re: How We Went from 30 Servers to 2: Go

#185

Post by seanmcdirmid »

beatgammit wrote: post #88
TillE wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's quite strange to me that people would identify as or look for a "[language] programmer". Sure, I happen to write more C++, Python, and C than anything else, but I've dabbled in just about everything and could reach comfortable proficiency in a matter of weeks. Most of programming and all of computer science is universal. Any serious programmer should be a polyglot by default.

I agree that any serious programmer should be able to be productive in any language, but mastery of a style of programming takes time. It's easy to move about in the same style of programming, but trying to move someone from enterprise-y OO (Java, C#) to functional (Haskell, Lisp) or even Go is a bit of a leap. Concepts often just don't cross over. A Go channel, for example, makes sense to an Erlang developer, but no…

Even within languages, styles are not set in stone; e.g. are you the OO-style Scala programmer, or are you the FP-style Scala programmer?

Java has had channels for a while now at the library level, they just lack pretty syntax. But this just reinforces my point.

Re: How We Went from 30 Servers to 2: Go

#186

Post by cartwright »

rgbrgb wrote: post #169
bingobangobongo wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> impossible to maintain expert level skills in more than one or two language + library environments And the crappier your language and libraries, the more time it takes to be an "expert."

By this definition, Ruby/Rails are pretty crappy (I kind of disagree). As a newcomer, the amount of stuff going on in a Rails app and the stack trace when there's an error are pretty overwhelming. Meanwhile, people expound on how simple and elegant Rails is. Lately I've been thinking that this is because those people started using it 5 years ago when it was small and their knowledge has built incrementally with the e…

Rails is pretty crappy if you ask me. It's "omakase" which is Japanese for "acts according to what DHH wants despite what the community wants". And there's a lot of magic happening that isn't explained very well. There are better frameworks in Ruby. Ruby itself doesn't take all that long to be an expert at.

Re: How We Went from 30 Servers to 2: Go

#187

Post by drivebyacct2 »

TresAmiga wrote: post #163
jbooth wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go has first-class functions, so you could write a library do the same thing with, yes, a few more declarations around it. In your example, .map { |i| i + 9 } is .map( func(i int) int { return i + 9 }), or .map(myFuncDefinedElsewhere) in most real-world scenarios. As a commenter upthread pointed out, Go and serverside Javascript are aimed at very different use cases and audiences.

Wrong and you know it. Go does not have generics so you have to use void* (interface{}) and casting. It ends up being about an order of magnitude uglier and more verbose. Which is why map, fold, etc don't exist in Go. You go fanatics are incorrigible.

Seriously? Is this just a coincidence that another throwaway named "TakeTwo" and then "TresAmiga" are both making throw aways and dismissing all Go users? Jesus.

What he's describing is far more than possible using interfaces. I have plenty of code that does so.

How is that "wrong and he knows it". Your worse than any Go fan here. Where the hell does someone get off being vitriolic about a language or someone's preference for that language. Pathetic, at least have the balls to post under your real account.

That having been said, as an "incorrigible Go fan", I would love to see proper generics. It's something I'm enjoying in Rust. It's also something that everyone is open to adding in Go 2, so it doesn't necessarily have to be a permanent absence from Go.

Re: How We Went from 30 Servers to 2: Go

#188

Post by trungonnews »

rmoriz wrote: post #62

How about BDD, test-driven development and quality insurance? Does Go provide an ecosystem that supports agile refactorings that are common in lean startups? You can say anything bad about the performance of Ruby and Rails etc. but rspec, cucumber, capybara, vcr, factorygirl are really important features to start from zero and reach a viable product.

Go doesn't have any mocking framework like Mockito/Java or Rspec mock. You will end up writing a ton of code yourself if you want to mock something simple.

Re: How We Went from 30 Servers to 2: Go

#189

Post by alok-g »

TillE wrote: post #30
shurcooL wrote: post #20

> "We also weren't sure if we would be able hire top talent if we chose Go, but we soon found out that we could get top talent because we chose Go." I feel[1] that a smart/talented C/C++/anything developer can go from someone who has never seen or heard of golang to a proficient and productive Go developer in a matter of a few weeks, maybe even _days_, if not less. That's how long it takes to go through the following…

It's quite strange to me that people would identify as or look for a "[language] programmer". Sure, I happen to write more C++, Python, and C than anything else, but I've dabbled in just about everything and could reach comfortable proficiency in a matter of weeks. Most of programming and all of computer science is universal. Any serious programmer should be a polyglot by default.

>> Any serious programmer should be a polyglot by default.

I can pick up a new language very fast but won't consider myself a polyglot (know a handful of languages). I do still consider myself a serious programmer.

Post reply on HN