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

121–130 of 178 posts

Re: Go After 2 Years in Production

#121

Post by kintamanimatt »

microtonal wrote: post #120
kintamanimatt wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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 people. As was Javascript plus Node.js two years ago, Ruby and RoR five years ago, etc. You'd think that more reasons are required than 'it is new, doesn't have baggage in was created by smart people'.

Go isn't a framework. NodeJS is a framework, as is Rails. JavaScript and Ruby are very old languages, both laden with baggage.

Re: Go After 2 Years in Production

#122

Post by realrocker »

rybosome wrote: post #113
neya wrote: post #32

Another Scala user here. And I've been using Scala for the last six months. Mostly developing web applications on Scalatra and Play. I love Scala - It still has its goodiness and it's an excellent alternative to Java. If you notice in all of the Scala books (I've read the one by Martin and the One by David Pollak as well), they all seem to push you towards the functional programming model instead of the much more com…

I've historically been pretty pro-Scala 'round these parts, so my response to this should be considered in that light. So, with that disclosure out of the way... =) I have to admit, I don't agree with the assertion that the cognitive dissonance associated with programming in an imperative way versus a functional way is a major problem to Scala. I realize personal preference is a very big part of this, but there are m…

Have ever tried programming in Go?

Edit: Functional Programming in Go 1. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4358031/functional-progra... 2. http://golang.org/doc/codewalk/functions/

Re: Go After 2 Years in Production

#123

Post by cgag »

asdasf wrote: post #103
neya wrote: post #32

Another Scala user here. And I've been using Scala for the last six months. Mostly developing web applications on Scalatra and Play. I love Scala - It still has its goodiness and it's an excellent alternative to Java. If you notice in all of the Scala books (I've read the one by Martin and the One by David Pollak as well), they all seem to push you towards the functional programming model instead of the much more com…

>When writing algorithms and so forth, but otherwise, you are forced to fallback to this imperative model which sucks You don't need to fallback to imperative style. The fact that people write web apps in pure functional languages should make that obvious. >Once you go Go, you never go back. That depends where you came from. I really tried to like go, but went running back to haskell. Go is just way too primitive.

Yeah, I'd like to hear more about what kind of things make you fall back to imperative style.

Re: Go After 2 Years in Production

#125

Post by gnuvince »

realrocker wrote: post #122
rybosome wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've historically been pretty pro-Scala 'round these parts, so my response to this should be considered in that light. So, with that disclosure out of the way... =) I have to admit, I don't agree with the assertion that the cognitive dissonance associated with programming in an imperative way versus a functional way is a major problem to Scala. I realize personal preference is a very big part of this, but there are m…

Have ever tried programming in Go? Edit: Functional Programming in Go 1. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4358031/functional-progra... 2. http://golang.org/doc/codewalk/functions/

Go doesn't lend itself to functional programming, in part because of its lack of type parametrization. In a language like Scala or Haskell, using functions like map, fold, and filter is clean an idiomatic. In Go, it is so ugly and convoluted that you immediately reject this approach and use for loops instead.

Re: Go After 2 Years in Production

#126

Post by mseepgood »

microtonal wrote: post #119
Ziomislaw wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why generics? Have you really understood how to write Go? Generics are not needed, you have interfaces.

Well, then write for me a type-agnostic map function that does not rely on introspection.

If you understood how to write Go, you would write an imperative ad-hoc loop instead of composing generic functional combinators. But you have to be mature enough to jump over the shadow of your functional pride and write clean imperative code.

Re: Go After 2 Years in Production

#128

Post by rybosome »

realrocker wrote: post #122
rybosome wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've historically been pretty pro-Scala 'round these parts, so my response to this should be considered in that light. So, with that disclosure out of the way... =) I have to admit, I don't agree with the assertion that the cognitive dissonance associated with programming in an imperative way versus a functional way is a major problem to Scala. I realize personal preference is a very big part of this, but there are m…

Have ever tried programming in Go? Edit: Functional Programming in Go 1. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4358031/functional-progra... 2. http://golang.org/doc/codewalk/functions/

I'm currently in a study group at work for Go, and I'm writing a few one-off personal tools with it. This is hardly serious experience, but it's enough to get a flavor for the language.

As the other answer to your question states, adopting a functional style in Go is technically possible, but practically it is so inconvenient as to be unusable.

EDIT: Take a look at this article, which explores developing a library that adds runtime-checked type parametric functions. http://blog.burntsushi.net/type-parametric-functions-golang

Choice quote:

"There’s no such thing as a free lunch. The price one must pay to write type parametric functions in Go is rather large:

Type parametric functions are SLOW. Absolutely zero compile time type safety. Writing type parametric functions is annoying. Unidiomatic Go."

Re: Go After 2 Years in Production

#129

Post by chas »

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…

Total functional programming (and the associated analysis of codata has already been touched on), so I'll just address your interest in static guarantees for space usage. The Virgil programming language[1] has been designed with exactly this in mind. It is aimed at embedded systems where memory is extremely constrained and running out of memory could kill people. Heap allocation is not possible in the language and all data structures are initialized during compilation (like C++ templates, but more sophisticated). The compiler can use the initialization information for advanced optimization and analysis as well as serving as a bound on the memory usage. [2] The language also has some interesting static typing ideas, but they are not as distinct from other languages.

Further discussion on LtU: http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/2131

[1] https://code.google.com/p/virgil/ [2] http://compilers.cs.ucla.edu/virgil/overview.html

Re: Go After 2 Years in Production

#130

Post by gt384u »

Game_Ender wrote: post #28
bitcrusher wrote: post #15

I can't be the only person who thinks Go is really interesting, but can't get over the 'package' hump... It's just too wonky for 'real-world' from my experience. For example, how do you create clear lines of separation with internal modules? If you want to use 'namespaces' then each namespace has to be it's own package, which then requires its own Repo that you have to 'go get'. There's unsustainable for a project of…

Google has said they don't use 'go get' internally to manage dependencies, so they appear to agree with you.

I would imagine this has something to do with having an existing package dependency management system company-wide and it causing friction trying to get the two to coexist.

I have similar issues where I work with trying to integrate an internal build system and rubygems. Our answer is to essentially mirror the gem version internally into our own repo. It's not the best answer I could hope for.

Post reply on HN