141–150 of 396 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost zero drama and almost no feature creep or breaking changes. The team seems to have a focus, and does not change it easily. That is important for a programming language, and it doesn’t happen organically.
I suspect all the drama happens internally.
IMHO Go has been one of the best-managed open source projects ever. Hats off to Google for supporting it.
What are some things that make it well managed?
rsc, thank you very much for all the hard work on the language that brought me into software engineering. Despite playing around with several programming languages, Go still feels like home. The development experience is terrific and I really appreciate how unapologetically simple and responsible the language and its creators have been. Good luck and all the best in all your endeavours!
> rsc, thank you very much for all the hard work on the language that brought me into software engineering. You're quite welcome, and thank you for this comment. I never expected when we started that Go would have such a positive impact on people's lives, bringing new people into programming and software engineering. That's definitely the impact I'm most proud of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are some things that make it well managed?
Your question answers itself. It's growing in popularity in every year and has apparently suffered exactly zero scandals or embarrassing gaffes of any kind. Just not fucking up is huge in making any serious enterprise successful and very, very difficult to achieve.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's already quite popular. I'm less convinced there's a large pile of people wishing for a fairly high performance garbage collected language that are not using Go because of this. There just aren't many viable alternatives.
Java and C# being the obvious (and more performant) alternatives. And compared to them, Go already wins because of not being, well, "enterprisey". And with that I mean less the languages itself, but also the whole ecosystem around them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Basically, the Go team is a bunch of old white dudes, which already means the project is poorly managed from the start This seems like a broad generalization. Can you please elaborate?
[flagged]
Thank you, rsc, for all your work. Development in Go has become much more enjoyable in these 12 years: race detector, standardized error wrapping, modules, generics, toolchain updates, and so on. And while there are still things to be desired (sum types, better enum/range types, immutability, and non-nilness in my personal wishlist), Go is still the most enjoyable ecosystem I've ever developed in.
Nomination for RSC's greatest technical contribution: module versioning. Absolutely fundamental to the language ecosystem. https://research.swtch.com/vgo-intro
Hope he gives us more in the future
thanks rsc
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think this is true. Python had a BDFL and it didn't seem to benefit much from it. I'm not sure what other projects this attitude draws from. Off-hand I'd guess it causes less drama but no appreciable increase of quality, just like other forms of bureaucracy. Meanwhile there's entire landfills of failed projects with single owners who couldn't bend enough. We just don't find this worth discussing. Of course th…
Here are some other projects that benefited from BDFLs in my opinion: * Keras * Ruby * Clojure * Zig * OCaml * Vim * Elixir I think all of these have ended up being unusually coherent. I may not agree with their design philosophy, but there clearly is one.
A very widespread system for organising people is to have a single responsible decision-maker, supported, monitored and advised by a committee. We see that through politics and business, and a lot of the best open source projects seem to do the same thing.