Why Go is doomed to succeed • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Go is doomed to succeed

#111

Post by twic » Sat, Jun 13, 2015, 6:31 PM UTC

dsymonds wrote: post #37

pron wrote: post #31

Go seems to be attracting a lot of developers from Python, Ruby and Node because Go offers them the easy path to getting started that they place a premium on, combined with speed, but relatively few people from the order-of-magnitude-larger JVM world. Coming from Java I like that there's a very similar language that I can use for command line applications (a JVM sore-spot) or a simple daemon -- both because it doesn'…

It's not hard to find people switching from Java to Go (e.g. http://www.infoworld.com/article/2608571/application-develop... , which I found within 10 seconds of searching). It's true that Go doesn't have a lot of those powerful JVM features that you listed, but as with any engineering trade-off there are lots of people who judge the benefits of Go to be worth the loss of those things.

That particular example of someone switching is someone whose background is in Java, but moved to a project implemented largely in Go. He switched because he changed projects.

Re: Why Go is doomed to succeed

#112

Post by yo-code-sucks » Sat, Jun 13, 2015, 6:34 PM UTC

nobullet wrote: post #9

gtrubetskoy wrote: post #2

Compiled to native binary, garbage collected, no JVM and not object oriented is why I like it.

What's wrong with JVM?

Memory overhead, and the ability for endless abstraction to save three lines of boilerplate code and then the fact that it has only one actual implementation, meaning the abstraction was unnecessary.

Re: Why Go is doomed to succeed

#113

Post by hyperpape » Sat, Jun 13, 2015, 6:42 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #42

hyperpape wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does Java meet the criterion you're describing here?

JavaEE sure does.

Certainly. I guess I'm not sure if I should call it the standard library or not (and if I should care whether I call it that).

Re: Why Go is doomed to succeed

#114

Post by dawkins » Sat, Jun 13, 2015, 6:45 PM UTC

myg204 wrote: post #94

dawkins wrote: post #5

"Go won’t let you abstract yourself in the foot." :)

What a good expression. Did the author originate it?

yes, it's from the article

Re: Why Go is doomed to succeed

#115

Post by jamesfisher » Sat, Jun 13, 2015, 6:51 PM UTC

dawkins wrote: post #5

"Go won’t let you abstract yourself in the foot." :)

What a strange idea. The whole point of a programming language is to enable abstraction. I suppose assembler doesn't let you "abstract yourself in the foot" (whatever that means) either.

Re: Why Go is doomed to succeed

#116

Post by fao_ » Sat, Jun 13, 2015, 6:54 PM UTC

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #41

aaggarwal wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have never used Go before. From the sound of it, it looks like Go hits a sweet spot between C and Java? and of course the Google support is a major factor for a possible success.

Not quite. To understand Go, you need to understand the history of the Bell Labs gurus somewhere around the late 9th and 10th editions of Research Unix, when the vestiges of what would become Plan 9 and Inferno began to take shape (the sam editor that would influence acme, the rc shell, mk and the predecessor to 9P [streams] would all originate here - see "Interprocess Communication in the Ninth Edition Unix System"…

CSP == Continuation Style Passing or?

Re: Why Go is doomed to succeed

#117

Post by Dewie3 » Sat, Jun 13, 2015, 6:55 PM UTC

ilurk wrote: post #86

I'm curious about two things. (1) where does Rust fit in this? (2) and if Go is lacking in the concurrency department and loses to Erlang in latency. Why don't people use Erlang/Elixir for servers and Python/etc for client side?

> (1) where does Rust fit in this?

It doesn't. Not any more than other languages anyway.

Re: Why Go is doomed to succeed

#118

Post by rwmj » Sat, Jun 13, 2015, 6:56 PM UTC

garfij wrote: post #104

rwmj wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like "... whether you've used any more modern languages than C" (such as ML and many other functional and research languages).

I like how ML is more modern than C, but they were both released in the early 70s.

Indeed, ML was more advanced at the time of release, and has been improved since. However I won't blame C, since C was much more successful and (as Javascript knows well) it's very much harder to make changes to a language when you have to maintain backwards compatibility with a vast body of code used in production.

Re: Why Go is doomed to succeed

#119

Post by mrspeaker » Sat, Jun 13, 2015, 6:57 PM UTC

wavesum wrote: post #88

Destined to succeed might make better english.

Aw, c'mon - where's your sense of imagination! No one would click on an article with that title (except Go fans). "Doomed to succeed" surprises the reader and entices them to see what it could possibly mean. It's a fantastic title!

Re: Why Go is doomed to succeed

#120

Post by vezzy-fnord » Sat, Jun 13, 2015, 6:59 PM UTC

fao_ wrote: post #116

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not quite. To understand Go, you need to understand the history of the Bell Labs gurus somewhere around the late 9th and 10th editions of Research Unix, when the vestiges of what would become Plan 9 and Inferno began to take shape (the sam editor that would influence acme, the rc shell, mk and the predecessor to 9P [streams] would all originate here - see "Interprocess Communication in the Ninth Edition Unix System"…

CSP == Continuation Style Passing or?

Communicating Sequential Processes.