The March Towards Go
zef.me
The March Towards Go
1–10 of 217 posts
Re: The March Towards Go
#2When node first appeared, the thought of server side JS gave me shivers, maybe I should trust my instincts more often.
Re: The March Towards Go
#3I don't understand why people like go. It seems to be missing a lot of features and be pretty ugly and painful. I guess compared to javascript I can see the advantages though
Re: The March Towards Go
#4Go may well be better for many apps than js or C++, but there are other languages out there. If you're looking for a new language it's worth considering more possibilities, e.g. see http://roscidus.com/blog/blog/2013/06/09/choosing-a-python-r...
Re: The March Towards Go
#5> Statically linked binaries make for easy deployment
They certainly do, but have we solved the problem of statically linked bugs yet? What happens when the next heartbleed happens?
Re: The March Towards Go
#6I don't understand why people like go. It seems to be missing a lot of features and be pretty ugly and painful. I guess compared to javascript I can see the advantages though
Go could be improved in many ways. It lacks facilities that what we consider modern programming languages have, e.g. object-oriented programming, generics. The existing Goland solution to the generics problem is to have an almost duck typing approach of doing everything via interface{}. These are the cons.
The pros are of such value that they more than compensate for the cons: first class facilities for building concurrent programs and distributed systems. These are language features such as go-routines and channels and standard library includes for networking and RPC.
These are so great at what they do that they make programmers like me, who like Go, overlook the suck that comes from the existing typing system.
My personal dream endgame would be a dynamic language, such as Python or Ruby, that includes the concurrency features such as goroutines and channels. Directly as language features. AFAIK, the existing GIL in the reference Python and Ruby interpreters makes adding true goroutines impossible.
Re: The March Towards Go
#7I want Go but with a really strong static type system. What do I use?
Haskell's Hackage seems to be full of broken packages.
OCaml seems to be stuck in 1999.
F#/Mono is pretty great, but tough to find quality libraries that work with the tools I use (postgres etc)
Anything I'm missing?
Re: The March Towards Go
#8Go may well be better for many apps than js or C++, but there are other languages out there. If you're looking for a new language it's worth considering more possibilities, e.g. see http://roscidus.com/blog/blog/2013/06/09/choosing-a-python-r...
Go has a larger and more active eco-system for today's world.
Re: The March Towards Go
#9There are a couple of things which have stopped me getting into go which I am ignorant about.
- Lack of decent IDE with intellisense/good refactoring support.
- Libraries seem to be globally shared between projects like rvm rather than in the project like nvm.
Am I wrong, misguided or out of date on these things?
Re: The March Towards Go
#10I want Go but with a really strong static type system. What do I use? Haskell's Hackage seems to be full of broken packages. OCaml seems to be stuck in 1999. F#/Mono is pretty great, but tough to find quality libraries that work with the tools I use (postgres etc) Anything I'm missing?
[deleted]