Live data from Hacker News

Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

changelog.com

41–50 of 135 posts

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#41
post #24
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The basic-ness of golang is the best part about it.

It's possible that a huge marketing advantage kept people interested long enough to come to appreciate the benefits of the langauge's basic nature.

I was drawn to Go because it was the only language at the time (or the only one I came across) that allowed me to build and package software without learning a domain specific language and imperatively stitching together my own build system (looking at you, CMake and Gradle). Basically I want to focus on writing my program, not writing programs to build my program.

Go let me run “go build”, and everything Just Worked. It has since become a little more complicated with the introduction of modules, but still vastly better than C++, Java, or Python.

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#42
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please consume the ads. Content isn't free.

What an ironic comment on an article whose subject is a massive, free, open-source piece of "content."

You know it's "free as in freedom, not beer," right?

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much this, the only reason anyone gave Go any attention was: 1. The pedigree of the creators 2. Google's developer marketing And now we are stuck with it thanks to traction.

Or maybe because it is a useful and productive language?

I have feeling the people who praise Go didn't use too many other languages.

In my workplace Go is the preferred language, but I don't enjoy it, its type system stands in the way on every step.

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#44
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being basically a copy of Limbo with Oberon-2 method syntax, although we are a bit further than 1992, to start with. And while at it, offering less features as Algol used to have.

Offering less features was literally their goal in which they succeeded

Yes, I always find it surprising that people evaluate languages on the sheer number of features. As though the hallmark of a good language is having lots of complexity.

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#45
post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What an ironic comment on an article whose subject is a massive, free, open-source piece of "content."

You know it's "free as in freedom, not beer," right?

Go is both free as in freedom _and_ free as in beer. Binaries and source are available for use or modification to anybody, free of charge. No ads either.

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much this, the only reason anyone gave Go any attention was: 1. The pedigree of the creators 2. Google's developer marketing And now we are stuck with it thanks to traction.

Go is by far my favourite language to develop with. After having done Java, C#, C/C++ and python. I still love functional languages more but for using something in the 'industry', I wouldn't want to use something else anymore.

To be honest, I write a lot of Go... it's my main work language and I use it for some of my hobby work too.

I love some aspects of it, for example, I love that you can generally look at a piece of Go code and grok it quickly. I love the lack of exceptions, but I strongly dislike the lack of good error handling facilities.

The standard library is really solid..., it has tons of very high quality implementations for low level OS and systems work and the API's are consistent.

The lack of Generics annoys me a fair bit. I do not love the module system at all. The Go folks somehow still managed to fuck up logging despite plenty of history in Python and Java about how not to do it, and how to build a good logging system. Also the lack of a good immutability construct really upsets me.

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much this, the only reason anyone gave Go any attention was: 1. The pedigree of the creators 2. Google's developer marketing And now we are stuck with it thanks to traction.

Or maybe because it is a useful and productive language?

It's almost as good as Blub, that's for sure...

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#49
post #22
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They talk about it at Google IO, for example.

Google I/O has 0 materials about Go.

Today, because Go has its own conventions.

It used to have in 2012, 2013, 2014, etc...

https://blog.golang.org/go-videos-from-google-io-2012

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#50
post #29

While I dislike golang its runtime and compiler are nice. Also lot of its simplicity aspects are nice. if vlang can implement what it is trying to implement then probably it will be a nice contender to golang in all aspects. But that looks too good to be true. The other language is rust, but the higher learning curve make it a bit harder for adoption in non systems where go/java like performance is enough.

I mean, Crystal would be my next go-to. If you have never written Ruby (like me) the appeal isn't the Ruby-like syntax, it's just a reasonable syntax with a very pragmatic type system and niceties (like classes, which are more open to hacking / composition than in other languages). It's like Go++ in my mind.

Crystal is dead, exactly how can you expect to have a language that compete with Go with only 2 full time devs?
Post reply on HN