11–20 of 679 posts
Seeing Huawei got recently blacklisted for all US made chips, parts and some Android services from Google, an interesting question to ask is whether the US government will one day force some foreign companies (e.g. Huawei, ZTE and DJI for example) to stop using programming languages invented & implemented by US companies.
This. But Go is one in a long line of proprietary languages that those of us who have been around the block know to stay away from. Recently: Java was Sun's, C# is Microsoft's, Swift is Apple's, Go is Google's. With any luck, all will be footnotes in ten years. Those of us who knew better than to get invested in them will be fine. Everyone else gets a chance to learn something.
So what would you recommend?
This. But Go is one in a long line of proprietary languages that those of us who have been around the block know to stay away from. Recently: Java was Sun's, C# is Microsoft's, Swift is Apple's, Go is Google's. With any luck, all will be footnotes in ten years. Those of us who knew better than to get invested in them will be fine. Everyone else gets a chance to learn something.
I'm confused as to what's stopping someone from forking it, calling it OpenGo, and building a community around that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that is necessarily true. Rust has only one compiler (and I think adding a second one would be a huge effort with no clear win) yet it is developed by a community that is very welcoming to newcomers. At least, that's been my experience.
It is definitely true. There's virtually no room for improving the underlying compiler toolchain because there's no allowance or support for an alternate implementation (using GCC, for example). Go at least has gcc-go, which is a compliant implementation that gets some benefits from being part of GCC (like not completely broken support for dynamic link libraries!). Having a second compiler implementation forces the l…
This. But Go is one in a long line of proprietary languages that those of us who have been around the block know to stay away from. Recently: Java was Sun's, C# is Microsoft's, Swift is Apple's, Go is Google's. With any luck, all will be footnotes in ten years. Those of us who knew better than to get invested in them will be fine. Everyone else gets a chance to learn something.
So what would you recommend?
I like that there is a tight cohesive group in control over Go and that they are largely the original designers. I might be more interested in alternative government structures and Google having too much control only if those original authors all stepped down.
To determine how open a language really is look at how many widely used implementations of the compiler there are for the language. If there is only a single implementation of the compiler/interpreter than it is not really open but controlled by that core compiler team.
I don't think that is necessarily true. Rust has only one compiler (and I think adding a second one would be a huge effort with no clear win) yet it is developed by a community that is very welcoming to newcomers. At least, that's been my experience.
OCaml and Haskell are one-horse towns, with substantial history, that are not going away.
But as Stroustrup says, there are languages people complain about, and languages no one uses. You generally end up better off investing your time in mastering a language people complain about. Bitterly. Once that meant FORTRAN.
This. But Go is one in a long line of proprietary languages that those of us who have been around the block know to stay away from. Recently: Java was Sun's, C# is Microsoft's, Swift is Apple's, Go is Google's. With any luck, all will be footnotes in ten years. Those of us who knew better than to get invested in them will be fine. Everyone else gets a chance to learn something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think that is necessarily true. Rust has only one compiler (and I think adding a second one would be a huge effort with no clear win) yet it is developed by a community that is very welcoming to newcomers. At least, that's been my experience.
It is definitely true. There's virtually no room for improving the underlying compiler toolchain because there's no allowance or support for an alternate implementation (using GCC, for example). Go at least has gcc-go, which is a compliant implementation that gets some benefits from being part of GCC (like not completely broken support for dynamic link libraries!). Having a second compiler implementation forces the l…