Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rust looks a lot more like a slightly more sane C++, given the proliferation of Someclass::Somethingelse
Rust doesn't have classes.
[deleted]
Official Go support
41–50 of 117 posts
Re: Official Go support
#42Guys slightly off topic, but please do keep the colorblind people in mind. The colors used for the graphs are so similar that I can not differentiate them.
Interesting - I thought it'd be red/green, but it's blue/purple (which I thought were colors chosen for the color blind). Is blue/purple color blind less common? Can you differentiate between red/green?
Red/blue would be safer colors to differentiate for many colorblind people. Red/green colorblindness is so common it baffles me that comparisons using red/green are still so prevalent. Especially considering how heavily biased the tech population is toward men.
And as Sanddancer points out, any colors that make use of red/green are going to be problems as well. (hence blue/purple being an issue as the difference is the red component).
In a given group of 5 men, you have a 50% chance that 1 is red/green color deficient.
Re: Official Go support
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go was originally pitched as a better C, but it seems to be finding a niche as a better Python or possibly a better Java. Go binaries have built-in GC, and Go will probably never reach C levels of performance. There is a lot to like about Go and it is working out very well for a lot of people, but it isn't appropriate for every situation. If you want a better C, better to look into Rust: http://www.rust-lang.org/
When Google will completely deprecate Java for Go on Android (could be a number of years, if ever), then Java should imminently become irrelevant (over a number of years, maybe a decade, or maybe it will never disappear completely, but the point is it will rapidly decline with new and existing developers).
Given Android's core team statements at Google IO 2014 about Java being the only official language, with no plans to improve the NDK beyond the existing support, I find it very hard to ever happen.
Unless Management forces the team to change their mind, that is.
Re: Official Go support
#44Guys slightly off topic, but please do keep the colorblind people in mind. The colors used for the graphs are so similar that I can not differentiate them.
Please excuse our ignorance. We've updated the chart to try and help you differentiate between the two.
Re: Official Go support
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go is a very pleasant language to develop software products in. Unlike the dynamically typed languages, it doesn't trade speed for beauty of syntax. This means that sometimes syntax can be a little non-uniform, but there's always a reason. Unlike C and C++, it doesn't trade safety for speed of execution. There are no buffer overflow vulnerabilities in Go applications. It treads a fine line of where to let the languag…
> There are no buffer overflow vulnerabilities in Go applications Actually there are in certain cases [1], but there's a good reason for that. 1. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/25628920/slicing-operatio...
But that's not a buffer overflow. You can't access uninitialized memory (well, without unsafe anyway).
Re: Official Go support
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go was originally pitched as a better C, but it seems to be finding a niche as a better Python or possibly a better Java. Go binaries have built-in GC, and Go will probably never reach C levels of performance. There is a lot to like about Go and it is working out very well for a lot of people, but it isn't appropriate for every situation. If you want a better C, better to look into Rust: http://www.rust-lang.org/
When Google will completely deprecate Java for Go on Android (could be a number of years, if ever), then Java should imminently become irrelevant (over a number of years, maybe a decade, or maybe it will never disappear completely, but the point is it will rapidly decline with new and existing developers).
I don't see any reason why Java usage would rapidly decline. The only thing that's likely to replace Java is Java 8, since everyone wants lambdas and there's a clear upgrade path. Even that's a big change and migration will take a while on Android.
It's unclear what the big missing feature is after lambdas. I think there will be little incentive for further change, so large companies will keep on running it.
Re: Official Go support
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
When Google will completely deprecate Java for Go on Android (could be a number of years, if ever), then Java should imminently become irrelevant (over a number of years, maybe a decade, or maybe it will never disappear completely, but the point is it will rapidly decline with new and existing developers).
I don't see any reason why Java usage would rapidly decline. The only thing that's likely to replace Java is Java 8, since everyone wants lambdas and there's a clear upgrade path. Even that's a big change and migration will take a while on Android. It's unclear what the big missing feature is after lambdas. I think there will be little incentive for further change, so large companies will keep on running it.
> It's unclear what the big missing feature is after lambdas.
I agree. I think Java pretty much is what it is by now. As someone said, "For those who like this kind of thing, this is the kind of thing they like."
Java-the-language is pretty complete. (Even though Haskell people complain about the lack of a decent type system, and Lisp users complain about the verbose syntax, and C++ folks wish they had destructors.) Java-the-platform is in fine shape (the library is Java's unsung best selling point.)
Java-the-enterprise-bloatware-behemoth... well, it really needs to be shot in the head and the body incinerated, but it may actually do the jobs it's given to do about as well as anything that might replace it.
Re: Official Go support
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interesting - I thought it'd be red/green, but it's blue/purple (which I thought were colors chosen for the color blind). Is blue/purple color blind less common? Can you differentiate between red/green?
Red/blue would be safer colors to differentiate for many colorblind people. Red/green colorblindness is so common it baffles me that comparisons using red/green are still so prevalent. Especially considering how heavily biased the tech population is toward men. And as Sanddancer points out, any colors that make use of red/green are going to be problems as well. (hence blue/purple being an issue as the difference is t…
> In a given group of 5 men, you have a 50% chance that 1 is red/green color deficient.
Soooo, 1 in 10 men are red/green colour deficient?
Re: Official Go support
#49Guys slightly off topic, but please do keep the colorblind people in mind. The colors used for the graphs are so similar that I can not differentiate them.
Interesting - I thought it'd be red/green, but it's blue/purple (which I thought were colors chosen for the color blind). Is blue/purple color blind less common? Can you differentiate between red/green?
Purple is blue+red, so my son who has a very common color deficiency can't tell purple from blue at all. They look completely the same to him.
Re: Official Go support
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Red/blue would be safer colors to differentiate for many colorblind people. Red/green colorblindness is so common it baffles me that comparisons using red/green are still so prevalent. Especially considering how heavily biased the tech population is toward men. And as Sanddancer points out, any colors that make use of red/green are going to be problems as well. (hence blue/purple being an issue as the difference is t…
> In a given group of 5 men, you have a 50% chance that 1 is red/green color deficient. Soooo, 1 in 10 men are red/green colour deficient?
I believe that implies 1 in 8 people are.
Pc = Probability that someone is colorblind
(1 - Pc) = Probability they aren't colorblind
(1 - Pc)^5 = Probability that no one in group of 5 is colorblind
1 - (1 - Pc)^5 = Probability that someone in group of 5 is colorblindYou get .129449, which is approximately 1 in 8