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

Go After 2 Years in Production

blog.iron.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 178 posts

Re: Go After 2 Years in Production

#91

Post by sridharvembu »

winter_blue wrote: post #70
m0th87 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think Scala is an Academic language Sometimes "academic" seems like a catch-all for stuff people don't like. Scheme has a strong academic history in its use and implementation, yet it seems to be described as "academic" only when someone is unhappy with how minimalistic it is, which is the opposite issue described here.

Has anyone here used Haskell in a production environment? I want a language that is small, clean, and can provide a lot of static guarantees . I know many people find static guarantees and unacceptable curtailment of their "programming freedom", but frankly I think it's the answer to many of the problems we face in software today. Small is another thing. E.g. Go and Scheme are small . C++ and Scala are large . You kn…

Your point on "slightly below" Turning machines caught my attention - exactly the same terminology I have used. I want as many proofs (assertions) as possible about code, and Rice's Theorem is a problem, so slightly below Turing is on the radar. If you are interested, we can discuss this. Shoot me an email at svembu at zoho ...

Re: Go After 2 Years in Production

#92

Post by pcwalton »

toqueteos wrote: post #52

Not so relevant but for any of you who prefer Rust to Go and haven't tried Go, don't do it. Go's std, visibility by case and gofmt, among other things will make you cry for using Rust. I really hope Rust get's better with time and it really focuses on being developer friendly not just a bag of nice features.

> Not so relevant

Then why post?

Re: Go After 2 Years in Production

#93

Post by rthomas6 »

[deleted] wrote: post #67
teddyh wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a while I thought you meant Seymour Cray, or one of the supercomputers he designed and built. Was it so hard to type one letter in support of readability? Or is "cray" its own word now?

[deleted]

For a while I thought you meant Vladamir Bro, father of the idea of pedantry.

Was it so hard to type four letters in support of readability? Or is "bro" its own word now?

Re: Go After 2 Years in Production

#94

Post by ulisesrmzroche »

genwin wrote: post #89
ulisesrmzroche wrote: post #39

Anyone got a good tutorial on Go? I'm interested in fiddling around with it.

Beyond the online tutorials and e-books, I've found the book Programming in Go (by Mark Summerfield) to be an excellent reference.

Just kindled that up thanks dude. I'm going to see what what all the buzz is about.

Re: Go After 2 Years in Production

#95

Post by [deleted] »

nexneo wrote: post #90
jd007 wrote: post #31

"Two years in, Go has never been our bottleneck, it has always been the database." I would expect this to be true with any language, if you code well. Regular web applications do not have state so they are very easily scaled horizontally anyway. Databases on the other hand are trickier to scale the same way and will end up being the bottleneck almost all the time.

Thats not true for Ruby or it needs lots of fine tuning to make this statement true.

[deleted]

Re: Go After 2 Years in Production

#96

Post by ulisesrmzroche »

rthomas6 wrote: post #93
[deleted] wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

For a while I thought you meant Vladamir Bro, father of the idea of pedantry. Was it so hard to type four letters in support of readability? Or is "bro" its own word now?

So are ya'll here to talk about Scala and Go or to pull some scrub trolls?

Re: Go After 2 Years in Production

#97

Post by scott_s »

obeattie wrote: post #81
winter_blue wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has anyone here used Haskell in a production environment? I want a language that is small, clean, and can provide a lot of static guarantees . I know many people find static guarantees and unacceptable curtailment of their "programming freedom", but frankly I think it's the answer to many of the problems we face in software today. Small is another thing. E.g. Go and Scheme are small . C++ and Scala are large . You kn…

> it would be nice to be able to ascertain before running a program, certain time & space complexity bounds on it I don't know about knowing what "space" a program will consume ahead of time, but I believe the halting problem[1] means there'd be no way of computing a time requirement. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

The halting problem assumes a program from a Turing-complete model of computation. Not all computational models are Turing-complete. The parent is pointing out that if you limit yourself to a language or a sub-set of a language that is not Turing-complete, then you can make static assertions about things such as halting.

A trivial example would be a programming language that did not allow any loops or explicit backward branches. You would be able to provide upper bounds on how many operations such programs can perform.

Re: Go After 2 Years in Production

#98

Post by bketelsen »

voidlogic wrote: post #24
weego wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we need more than 1 account of Go in production before we start high-fiving each other about Go in the mainstream. And to be fair to the person you are responding too, there has been an inordinate amount of Go articles on HN over the last few months compared to anywhere else on the internet tech/dev wise, so much so that a number of my friends have independently made a joke of it.

>I think we need more than 1 account of Go in production before we start high-fiving each other about Go in the mainstream. I've been programming in Go full time since Go 1.0. Lots of companies use Go: http://golang.cat-v.org/organizations-using-go -And that is list out of date and not maintained. For example, companies like Mozilla and Walmart are not on that out of date list.

agreed - we've been using Go in production since before 1.0 and I know of many other high profile companies using it that aren't publicizing their usage for whatever reason. There is no question of whether Go works in production under loads. That has been asked and answered, your honor.

Re: Go After 2 Years in Production

#99

Post by gnur »

kintamanimatt wrote: post #7
dancric wrote: post #3

As a developer on the Python stack, I would love to know when would be a good time to start using Go in serious production work. It seems to me that it solves a lot of the backend services infrastructure problems associated with interpretive languages (one of the reasons I was considering diving in Scala or other JVM languages), is relatively reliable, and has a fairly strong core library. It still seems bleeding edg…

> I would love to know when would be a good time to start using Go in serious production work Now would be a good time. No language, runtime, compiler, library, or framework is ever going to be perfect, but now is a great time to dive in. > It still seems bleeding edge This is probably a good thing in many respects because Go doesn't have the baggage from yore, and it was created by some pretty smart and capable peop…

Exactly, there is never a better moment to start learning something new then now.

Re: Go After 2 Years in Production

#100

Post by kenko »

winter_blue wrote: post #70
m0th87 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think Scala is an Academic language Sometimes "academic" seems like a catch-all for stuff people don't like. Scheme has a strong academic history in its use and implementation, yet it seems to be described as "academic" only when someone is unhappy with how minimalistic it is, which is the opposite issue described here.

Has anyone here used Haskell in a production environment? I want a language that is small, clean, and can provide a lot of static guarantees . I know many people find static guarantees and unacceptable curtailment of their "programming freedom", but frankly I think it's the answer to many of the problems we face in software today. Small is another thing. E.g. Go and Scheme are small . C++ and Scala are large . You kn…

"(In Haskell, all function are pure by default, and you escape the confines of purity via monads.)"

This is not true. Nothing about monads, in themselves, allows you to write impure functions.

Post reply on HN