51–60 of 73 posts
"Go: Code -> Operating System -> Hardware" Is there any reason to use RVM, PVM on production while Go does not required one? I believe should be install one and only one Ruby/Python version on production. Why Ruby/Python does not required application server like unicorn/wcgi, etc? The article clearly try to make other deployment more complicated .
Have noted this 'opinionated' trend going for quite a while, so this comment isn't about this article in particular, but can someone break down why an opinionated guide to something technical would be preferable to an impartial one? The only thing it seems to imply is that bias adds value in its own right.
I see value in educated opinions. For instance a while back I was trying to figure out how to make a web app in Python (keep in mind that, while I can program, I have zero knowledge about web things). This is what I saw: https://wiki.python.org/moin/WebFrameworks Which framework is the best? Why are there so many? Which is the easiest for my specific goals? An opinionated guide that said something like "Use Flask bec…
Docker -> Operating System This makes no sense. The runtime of Docker is the Operating System. There's no extra layer, as it's being implied. And there's no difference between Go and the other languages that makes Docker more or less useful. You can have separate Python processes without Docker, just like you'd have separate Go processes. I like Go, but this article just sets up strawmen to bring down.
"Go: Code -> Operating System -> Hardware" Is there any reason to use RVM, PVM on production while Go does not required one? I believe should be install one and only one Ruby/Python version on production. Why Ruby/Python does not required application server like unicorn/wcgi, etc? The article clearly try to make other deployment more complicated .
It's a nonsense comparison anyway. E.g. with Java I don't have to care much about the hardware an operating system (e.g. we develop on Mac and deploy on Linux). And sure, you can use an application container. But you can also embed a webserver. E.g., we Jetty embedded and use a strict SecurityManager policy[1]. So it's more like: Code -> JVM (with security manager) [1] http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential…
Docker -> Operating System This makes no sense. The runtime of Docker is the Operating System. There's no extra layer, as it's being implied. And there's no difference between Go and the other languages that makes Docker more or less useful. You can have separate Python processes without Docker, just like you'd have separate Go processes. I like Go, but this article just sets up strawmen to bring down.
The question he's addressing isn't what you can do, but what is commonly being done. You don't need RVM, you don't need Docker. Hell, you don't need Rails. But those are the idiomatic layers of the stack, for a non-trivial part of the Ruby development community.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you read any posts or listen to any talks by Google's Go team, they are a fairly modest about Go. They know it isn't as fast as it could be (since they don't have decades of compiler optimizations yet that GCC or other compilers would give). As well, it's just a newer language. One thing a lot of people don't always realize is Golang started with the Plan9 C compiler[0]. So they actually generate all the way from…
It's actually a really great fit for C# and Java developers too... C# guys like it because it's cross platform and they get to stop the madness of worrying about what version of the .Net platform is installed. It's also nice to have a single executable and not 100 dlls to deploy... no more need for an installer to do everything for you, just drop an executable. I would imagine it's similar for the java guys, especial…
Why does this article only compare Go with interpreted languages at the top? Go is a compiled language; wouldn't it be more fair to compare it with other languages that can be compiled, like C++, Rust, Haskell, or Lisp/Scheme? I mention this because the article acts as if getting rid of abstraction layers between the OS and the code is a new idea. No, that's how all compiled languages are... that's the point of compi…
Why does this article only compare Go with interpreted languages at the top? Go is a compiled language; wouldn't it be more fair to compare it with other languages that can be compiled, like C++, Rust, Haskell, or Lisp/Scheme? I mention this because the article acts as if getting rid of abstraction layers between the OS and the code is a new idea. No, that's how all compiled languages are... that's the point of compi…
> that's how all compiled languages are You mean, like Java and C# ?!
Docker -> Operating System This makes no sense. The runtime of Docker is the Operating System. There's no extra layer, as it's being implied. And there's no difference between Go and the other languages that makes Docker more or less useful. You can have separate Python processes without Docker, just like you'd have separate Go processes. I like Go, but this article just sets up strawmen to bring down.
The question he's addressing isn't what you can do, but what is commonly being done. You don't need RVM, you don't need Docker. Hell, you don't need Rails. But those are the idiomatic layers of the stack, for a non-trivial part of the Ruby development community.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> that's how all compiled languages are You mean, like Java and C# ?!
No I mean languages compiled to machine code. I guess that happens sometimes with JIT or with some implementations of these languages? In general Java and C# are run on top of portable virtual machine layers, right?
That even leaves out Java compilers that skip the JVM step.