41–50 of 196 posts
foo, bar := someFunc(baz)
Wouldn't your editor, mouseless though it may be, provide for that? Does ctags not work with vi?
And why use vi over vim?
It's interesting to see that more and more internal projects at Google are getting redone in Go. However, this sentence stands out to me in the article: "Before doing the rewrite, we realized we needed only a small subset of the functionality of the original system -- perhaps 20% (or less) of what the other projects were doing with it." I'm guessing that a lot of the benefit of the rewrite came simply from the simpli…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"For each system that Google brings on-line with Go, even if it took a team of 10 6 months, they've likely saved themselves millions of dollars in new capex infrastructure acquisition" I thought the old systems were in c++. So, how did the infrastructure savings accrue? In fact, I don't recall anyone doing analysis on that front.
Matt linked to my course, but also: I did a tiny analysis of this with my pi searcher ( http://da-data.blogspot.com/2013/05/improving-pi-searchers-s... ) -- it's a toy compared to the kind of system that Matt described, but my experience was extremely positive. Rewriting it in Go made it easier to architect the system right to take advantage of persistence. It's hugely faster. We also have a paper accepted to SOSP th…
"So given code like: foo, bar := someFunc(baz) You'd really like to know what foo and bar actually are" Wouldn't your editor, mouseless though it may be, provide for that? Does ctags not work with vi? And why use vi over vim?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"For each system that Google brings on-line with Go, even if it took a team of 10 6 months, they've likely saved themselves millions of dollars in new capex infrastructure acquisition" I thought the old systems were in c++. So, how did the infrastructure savings accrue? In fact, I don't recall anyone doing analysis on that front.
Matt linked to my course, but also: I did a tiny analysis of this with my pi searcher ( http://da-data.blogspot.com/2013/05/improving-pi-searchers-s... ) -- it's a toy compared to the kind of system that Matt described, but my experience was extremely positive. Rewriting it in Go made it easier to architect the system right to take advantage of persistence. It's hugely faster. We also have a paper accepted to SOSP th…
You know, every time I see some Googler shocked at the effectiveness and various advantages of coding in Go, I wonder why Google never adopted Erlang. They could have been getting all these same advantages (and then some) a decade ago :)
I wonder why Google never adopted Erlang. Collectively, google believes they are right and the world is wrong. Anything pre-existing is dirty and unworthy of their genius if they didn't invent it themselves. So, even though we have 20 years of Erlang and production concurrency experience out there in one solid language, it's just ignored (except for parts they want to get "inspired by"). All of that is fine in isolat…
Google is almost alone in building internet services at its scale. The people calling for adoption of exotic tech like Erlang without understanding their unique requirements are the fadsters.
It's interesting to see that more and more internal projects at Google are getting redone in Go. However, this sentence stands out to me in the article: "Before doing the rewrite, we realized we needed only a small subset of the functionality of the original system -- perhaps 20% (or less) of what the other projects were doing with it." I'm guessing that a lot of the benefit of the rewrite came simply from the simpli…
OP here. It is absolutely true that we did not rewrite the entire original system in Go; I tried to be very explicit about that in the blog post. But, I feel confident that it could be done, in much less code, with greater clarity and modularization. The Go language by itself does not force good software design. A rewrite in any language would have been better than the original system, but our decision to use Go turn…
Was there anything about the language that you found particularly forced clarity and modularity? I'm giving a talk comparing Go and Ruby next month and I'm curious as to what people with experience with larger Go programs find to be most helpful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go doesn't require all functions to return error codes, and Go has exceptions (called panics). In Go, conventionally, the publicly exposed functions in a module shouldn't usually panic but should use error returns to report unusual conditions. But that's a convention to keep the behavior of functions clear from the interfaces, not a language limitation.
The language has panics. But you aren't supposed to use them. So...
You know, every time I see some Googler shocked at the effectiveness and various advantages of coding in Go, I wonder why Google never adopted Erlang. They could have been getting all these same advantages (and then some) a decade ago :)
Erlang has fantastic facilities for robustness and concurrency. What it does not have is type safety and it's terrible at handling text in a performant fashion. So if you don't care about either of those things and only care about robustness and concurrency then Erlang is great. There were internal discussions about Erlang here but the upshot was. We had already basically duplicated Erlangs supervision model in our infrastructure, only we did it for all languages and Erlang didn't offer any benefits in performance for us. It's only benefit would have been the concurrency model. That's much less benefit than Go gives.
Go gives you Erlangs concurency model, a similar philosophy of robustness, type safety, all batteries included, and performance. Equating the two languages works in 1 or 2 dimensions but not on all the dimensions google cares about.
You know, every time I see some Googler shocked at the effectiveness and various advantages of coding in Go, I wonder why Google never adopted Erlang. They could have been getting all these same advantages (and then some) a decade ago :)
I've had some experience with Prolog before touching any Erlang. It's not a syntax or a programming style that I liked, not at all. When I came to do some Erlang [1], I found the same style and it was not a pleasant surprise.
I learned C-like languages first, so maybe that's why my view is flawed. But most people also learn C-like languages as their first language, so it might be that Erlang looks like an ugly beast when they come across it. And thus as a concurrent language, Go seems to be first of it's kind.
Meanwhile, Go has a very simple style that pretty much everybody can read out of the box.
[1]: CS Games in Canada, one challenge was a 'debugging' competition where programs in ~10 languages had bugs we had to find and fix in 90 mins. One of them was in Go, another one in Erlang. Out of about 20 teams participating, me and another one (2/20) managed the Erlang one while the vast majority of the other teams managed to do the Go one. FWIW, this can speak to people's ability to understand Go vs. Erlang.