Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Moving from Go to PHP Again

dannyvankooten.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 371 posts

Re: Moving from Go to PHP Again

#341

Post by Aeolun »

KerryJones wrote: post #302
Aeolun wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just do not understand the fascination with Laravel. When the first version of Laravel was released Symfony was already lightyears ahead. The only thing Laravel had going for it was that you could take more shortcuts, and it was a pain to integrate into any IDE if you wanted decent autocompletion.

Laravel is not what it used to be either -- Laravel 5 is far more capable/usable than Rails or Django. It's ecosystem is vaster, much stronger community, better docs, faster -- pretty much every state it's better than it's competitors. Not an end-all be-all, but worth noting: https://github.com/topics/framework

Laravel may, may be better than Rails. But Django is better still.

Re: Moving from Go to PHP Again

#342

Post by throwaway2048 »

w8rbt wrote: post #199
k__ wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I talked with a few people who wrote Go servers and while they loved almost everything about the language and ecosystem, they hates the missing generics so much, they still switched to other languages later. Writing code-generators for everything wasn't fun.

I don't miss generics in Go and I have used generics in C++ a good deal. I think the whole generics argument against Go is largely parroted by people who may not even know what generics even are. C doesn't have Generics either. It's doing OK.

that isn't true at all, function macros serve as the moral equivalent of generics.

Re: Moving from Go to PHP Again

#343

Post by mmsimanga »

kristopolous wrote: post #113
coldtea wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course. That's the only reason to invent languages: to take care of stuff people are not good taking care of, and move the work to the computer, allowing us to work on the level that we're good at taking care of. Else we'd all be using assembly. There's absolutely no pride or glory in doing things nicely and securely that the computer could have automated in the first place. Anything the language allows that it co…

Incompetent people will create incompetent things regardless of the tool. Simpler tools lead to simpler messes while complicated tools lead to complicated messes. I've seen an attitude that people think they can inoculate themselves from inept programming by using obtuse frameworks as if martin-fowler-speak acts as a drill sergeant making disciplined coders out of the herd. But after 20 years of bouncing around start…

I agree with you 100%. I just want to add that this over complication of things is not just an IT thing. Try taking up a new hobby whether it is cycling or surfing. In no time you will have the "experts" telling you that a $200 bike is useless and is a waste of time. You need to spend at least $5000 to be part of the club. Now if you are a "professional" cyclist then spending a lot of money on a bike makes sense. For the rest of us, just getting on a bike for exercise is enough. I think some people just need to show they are better and know more. This is where some of these complications come from. Sometimes, of course, it is just plain incompetence.

Re: Moving from Go to PHP Again

#344

Post by grumpydba »

pjmlp wrote: post #316
grumpydba wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget that you also have to install and update the JVM. We admins don't like that.

Only those that don't know how to bundle the JVM with the application or make use of a commercial AOT compiler to native code.

You prove my point, it requires specific knowledge full of gotchas.

Re: Moving from Go to PHP Again

#345

Post by pjmlp »

sacado2 wrote: post #336
pjmlp wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

C++, .NET also come to mind in the widely area, with OCaml, Haskell failing under the not so widely, but fast umbrella.

O'caml and Haskell are extremely niche in the web server world, and are not especially faster than go. C# is not blazingly fast either. They all seem to be in the same ballpark.

They are all faster than Go in case you haven't been paying attention.

Re: Moving from Go to PHP Again

#346

Post by pjmlp »

grumpydba wrote: post #344
pjmlp wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only those that don't know how to bundle the JVM with the application or make use of a commercial AOT compiler to native code.

You prove my point, it requires specific knowledge full of gotchas.

As team lead I consider having the interest to master the tooling part of the job requirements and respective evaluation, not specific knowledge full of gothas.

Re: Moving from Go to PHP Again

#348

Post by kristopolous »

mmsimanga wrote: post #343
kristopolous wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Incompetent people will create incompetent things regardless of the tool. Simpler tools lead to simpler messes while complicated tools lead to complicated messes. I've seen an attitude that people think they can inoculate themselves from inept programming by using obtuse frameworks as if martin-fowler-speak acts as a drill sergeant making disciplined coders out of the herd. But after 20 years of bouncing around start…

I agree with you 100%. I just want to add that this over complication of things is not just an IT thing. Try taking up a new hobby whether it is cycling or surfing. In no time you will have the "experts" telling you that a $200 bike is useless and is a waste of time. You need to spend at least $5000 to be part of the club. Now if you are a "professional" cyclist then spending a lot of money on a bike makes sense. For…

It is much more of a lifestyle thing, you're right! With all things, I'll get the functional adequate version and use it until it no longer functions. Sometimes I'll buy multiple so as not to be bothered to repeat the shopping process when one wears out (I own many unopened identical pairs of shoes and glasses for instance)

Brands generally mean nothing to me, new consumer technology I'm generally not interested in, and I have no issues say, taking the bus and getting reading done instead of rolling around in say a Tesla (despite the fact that buying one is well within my financial reach). I honestly don't care in the slightest.

So yes, it's probably a larger personality disposition which manifests itself in this particular way moreso than it is a morsel of objective rational reality.

The people I lambast are the same ones with things like smart speakers and wifi connected refrigerators (I use an old minifridge and I prefer it). It's just a lifestyle; not some objectively poor use of money and time resources.

That's a nice perspective and it helps explain a lot, thanks.

Re: Moving from Go to PHP Again

#349

Post by svsucculents »

coldtea wrote: post #94
furicane wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So.. what you're trying to highlight is that a language is supposed to make up for the incompetence of the person using it?

Of course. That's the only reason to invent languages: to take care of stuff people are not good taking care of, and move the work to the computer, allowing us to work on the level that we're good at taking care of. Else we'd all be using assembly. There's absolutely no pride or glory in doing things nicely and securely that the computer could have automated in the first place. Anything the language allows that it co…

Totally disagree with this parental assessment of a language. It certainly doesn't apply to spoken languages or most ideal communication modalities. I think you want to fix your problem: which isn't a problem for someone else. See this everywhere on this site: SV kultur and the catch22 pronouncements of the correction generation.

Re: Moving from Go to PHP Again

#350

Post by svsucculents »

kristopolous wrote: post #123
coldtea wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Incompetent people will create incompetent things regardless of the tool Which is neither here nor there. For one, it ignores the pragmatic issue, that very competent people (the very people that built the foundations we all work on even) will still make lots of mistakes, even trivial ones, but with severe consequences (e.g. buffer overflows) when the languages don't prevent them. If only it was just "incompetent p…

Those mistakes aren't easy to spot or easy to fix. It's about giving code sunlight so that action at a distance and other kinds of magic don't hide errors making them harder to find, get in your way of fixing them, making reproducibility a mess and confirmation simply guesswork. Its the restrictive design trend of crippling languages which needlessly prevents the sunlight effect from happening along with "information…

You are speaking to the inmates writing the asylum. Give it up. This is the 4chan of the enlightened.
Post reply on HN