Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does Google use Go in any high-load services?
download.google.com is completely powered by Go at this point, iirc.
Why Go is doomed to succeed
221–230 of 330 posts
Re: Why Go is doomed to succeed
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
This got downvoted but I think there's more truth here than on much of the rest of the thread, though I might use words other than "engineering" and "craft". I'm fond of saying that Golang isn't a particularly great programming language , but is one of the great programming tools .
> I'm fond of saying that Golang isn't a particularly great programming language, but is one of the great programming tools. Could you elaborate on what you mean here? Why do you not consider Go a language? What do you consider the requirements to be a programming language?
The way I read it, he meant that Go is not a great language. Go is "boring" as a language. However, it actually is a great programming tool. Great as defined by how long it takes to write module X, how well module X performs, how many bugs are in X, and how easy it is for a different programmer to come along and work on X later. In a real sense, the very design that makes Go boring is responsible for the good things.
Re: Why Go is doomed to succeed
#223Earlier 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.
It doesn't feel right to say go is "between" java and c. There isn't a tremendous amount of expressiveness in go that java can't replicate, and there's enough in java missing from go that makes it a wash, for me anyway.
> There isn't a tremendous amount of expressiveness in go that java can't replicate, and there's enough in java missing from go that makes it a wash, for me anyway.
And thus, you've completely missed the point of Go.
Re: Why Go is doomed to succeed
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
In some situations, yes. But Java can suffer from similar complexity and maintainability issues too. Go, for all it's short comings and missing features, is closer to the "instant gratification" state that Python and it's ilk enjoy while having performance closer to that of Java. I'm not trying to say one language is better or worse than the other though. Just my observations as to why Go is gaining popularity.
How does go prevent complexity?
By avoiding complex constructs, and having an extremely easy-to-parse (humanly, as well as electronically) syntax. Not to mention the beautiful way that composition functions.
Re: Why Go is doomed to succeed
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
In practice, it doesn't make much difference. You install the JVM once and rarely upgrade it. You build and distribute your Java apps as fat jars (meaning, all dependencies bundled.)
But what happens when some of the apps require different versions of the JVM?
As long as you're using the latest version then this shouldn't be a problem as the JVM is backwards compatible.
Re: Why Go is doomed to succeed
#226I don't quite buy that a pretty low level language reduces developer fright. In my mind Go is a replacement for C more than the next Python. In that respect it is still intimidating for developers who have never done or done very little low level programming.
I friend of mine who has dabbled in C for years is still pretty scared of it. He loves Go. He's gotten Go into production where he works. I think there are a lot of people like him.
Re: Why Go is doomed to succeed
#227"TL;DR Golang was explicitly engineered to thrive in projects built by large groups of programmers with different skill levels, and there is no larger such group than the open source community." This would almost be right, but Go has much poorer language interop than C due to the GC and non-C compatible ABI. This means unless we're going to a monoculture of GoAllTheThings (not likely), Go will never succeed C as bein…
Swift has an interesting situation. Within 6 months of its beta release it was already being used to publish iOS & OSX apps. With it also being open source, and ported to other platforms I can imagine other mobile operating systems also embracing the language in hopes to get more developer traction. Not to mention that they have taken a little from every language, and server-side swift is a whole different beast. Thi…
Yes sir. And I'm no "Apple guy". My first computer was a Commodore64, and I own no Mac. Never have. My only Apple products in my lifetime has been 1 iPod Nano, an AppleTV2 (only for jailbreaking/XBMC) and 1 company iPhone 5S (after 5 years and 4 Android phones, some personal, some company, all running CyanogenMod when possible).
I hate how languages like Go get lumped in with "Google", an association which to me, is negative. For many, people fawn over Google, thinking a for-profit like Google does things in their best interests. When in reality it's temporarily mutually aligned interests.
I'm at the core if anything, a Mozilla guy. Not entirely because I'm not too diehard on the JSAllTheThings movement. I strongly lean towards native, even if my work consists mostly of Python2 backend for webapps. At least with native executing code it's possible to be open source. You never know what's executing serverside. So I'm less of a fan of the so-called "open web" (an oxymoron) than most. And that's discounting the difference in end product that exists between native/web. I like my web to be it's original intended usecase- such as how HN is. Nothing too fancy, data sharing.
I think from a language/implementation standpoint that Swift hit it on the money. That's what I would have wanted out of a Python3. If that were Swift, I'd be a huge fan. Swift just nailed what I believe people are really looking for. Go is a little sketchy in ways. I don't hate it, don't actively work against it as I do Python3... well, can't say I work against it but I don't extoll its technical churn. But Go at least is trying to solve a real problem, and solves more problems than it creates. Even if I think it squares up against Java more than it does C or Python.
Unfortunately, Swift is associated with Apple which has its own zealots (and zealous haters). It's regretful that programming is now fashion, hype, trend. But I do think they have the best-of-breed language here for general purpose use.
My money and personal contributions to these new wave of languages will definitely be to work on server-side Swift solutions. The thought of a single-language solution with a single GOOD language from backend to front if you use iOS is pretty amazing and I'm really looking forward to that, and Swift backend / web frontend as well.
Re: Why Go is doomed to succeed
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
> would it be much easier for Java programmers to move to Go compared to C programmers? Don't know about "very", but there would be very little difficulty moving from java to go. There wouldn't be that much value to it though (startup speed and deployment would be the primary ones, and if those are your concern chances are you're not using java as it's notoriously not great at those). > And, what about python program…
This is helpful. Thanks! I have one more question, how does Go ensure easy concurrency?
Assuming that's an honest question: it has actual lightweight threads, so you don't need to muck around with either async garbage or worrying that you're using too many threads because you aren't mucking around with async garbage.
Re: Why Go is doomed to succeed
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this was true, and not a just-so story, then it should be easy to point to several well-known open source projects that started out in Golang and ended up in some other language, or several concepts that were prototyped in Golang and then ported over to some other language. Like every programming language ever, there are surely many Golang users who've used it solely to add a keyword to their resume. That's not a…
I think people who use Go in the first place are not those who think much about "can this be done in a better way?". It's quite similar to the notion of "I'm a PHP developer and I don't understand why everyone says it is terribly designed! I learned to work with it and never tried anything else, so it can't be that bad!!!". Not every developer cares about software development. There are plenty of people who chose thi…
Your argument seems to rely on go being the first language someone has learned. Very few people learn go as a first language. Most people I know in the Go community have 10+ years of professional development experience in a variety of the popular imperative languages and have used go for a couple years. I'm sure there are probably some people learning go as a first language by now, but I doubt it's a significant number.
So, "not knowing any better" is kind of ridiculous.
Re: Why Go is doomed to succeed
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm fond of saying that Golang isn't a particularly great programming language, but is one of the great programming tools. Could you elaborate on what you mean here? Why do you not consider Go a language? What do you consider the requirements to be a programming language?
The way I read it, he meant that Go is not a great language. Go is "boring" as a language. However, it actually is a great programming tool. Great as defined by how long it takes to write module X, how well module X performs, how many bugs are in X, and how easy it is for a different programmer to come along and work on X later. In a real sense, the very design that makes Go boring is responsible for the good things.
This is an awesome point. I feel like programmers using Go care less about the language and more about the process of creating and maintaining a product.