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

Go is Google's language, not ours

utcc.utoronto.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 679 posts

Re: Go is Google's language, not ours

#401

Post by james-mcelwain »

blankaccount wrote: post #342
sgift wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Java has made a U-turn in adding streams and related functional features on top of a language that used to be strongly for OOP (actually defining the meaning of OOP for a generation of developers.) So, by adding a feature which works extremely well with OO and enhances the language they have no soul? That doesn't make any sense. Javas soul is being a blue collar language. It leaves the experiments to other (JVM) la…

How do you feel about streams/lambdas with Java's checked exceptions?

This is absolutely the biggest wart in modern Java. We now wrap all methods that can throw checked exceptions to rethrow unchecked. This works well for web services that can just retry or rollback and report an error to the client on transient exceptions, but is insufficient for many applications.

Re: Go is Google's language, not ours

#402

Post by dmitryminkovsky »

craftoman wrote: post #386
dmitryminkovsky wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everyone knows that companies are "exploiting" open source today which is really sad. Often enough it seems like companies go out of their way to deal with open source just for the "cred" and hiring opportunities that it brings. The open source itself is a just a drag on their internal team, which has to deal with tickets and contributions they don't want or need.

They don't need what? Free testing and debugging from thousands of people running their software on completely different hardware and OS? You may see useless tickets but companies are paying millions for QA and testing.

My observation has been that the free testing they get is often for cases they never hit in their production use cases.

For example, FB doesn’t use DraftJS on mobile, so it took a whole year long effort and a person who used to work for FB to fix mobile support. They just didn’t need it, didn’t have resources allocated to dealing wit it, and were understandably unresponsive on the subject. Now maybe they can use it in the future on mobile if they want, but they would have just fixed it if that need had ever arisen for them organically.

Re: Go is Google's language, not ours

#403

Post by vaer-k »

doesnt_know wrote: post #162

I'm going to risk being labeled an ~incompetent dev~ or whatever but learning golang was seriously a breath of fresh air compared to literally any language I have ever tried to grok before. Everything felt like it was there on purpose. It always seemed like there was a "proper" way to achieve something. Being told to use this opinionated formatter was like removing a 40kg bag after a bush walk. You never have to worr…

This is just how I feel about clojure. I enjoy using a language with design tightly controlled by the people closest to its vision.

Re: Go is Google's language, not ours

#404

Post by geoka9 »

slykar wrote: post #356
cryptos wrote: post #24

Actually there are relatively few real (TM) open source projects driven by the community, at least if you look at important projects. Many open source projects are just commercial projects driven mainly by a single company. Look for example at Redis, MongoDB, MySQL, and Elasticsearch. They follow exactly the model described in the article. Technologies like these could have been developed by a community, too, but it…

> I wonder why so many companies are happily paying Oracle [...] instead of sponsoring an open source project like PostgreSQL. Corporate world is ruled by liability. When you are working on a multi-million dollar project and the database breaks, you want to be able to put as much responsibility on the 3-rd party as much as possible. Open Source projects come with no guarantee. If someone hacks into a system because o…

> then Oracle is responsible and needs to pay your million dollar fine

Has it ever happened though? Genuinely curious.

Re: Go is Google's language, not ours

#405

Post by jcranmer »

pjmlp wrote: post #163
ncmncm wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guess away, but both C and C++ broke out of Bell control very, very quickly by language standards. Now they are driven by ISO Standards bodies, with many, many participants -- ATT not among them anymore, to my knowledge. Even in 1995 ATT had nothing approaching veto power. My remarks lumping Java in with C# and Swift are transparent wishful thinking.

Those ISO standards cost 100 euros on average per language version.

For C and C++, you can get effectively equivalent working drafts for free. For C++, you can actually compile the PDF that gets sent to ISO to put the official markings on yourself. Here is C++17: https://github.com/cplusplus/draft/tree/c++17 .

If you have a contractual obligation that requires to exactly use a specific version of C/C++, then you'll need to pay money for the actual specification. In pretty much any other situation, the drafts are sufficient and perhaps even better (because they will have incorporated some errata).

Re: Go is Google's language, not ours

#406

Post by alach11 »

chrisweekly wrote: post #317
B-Con wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the general point though. Community pressure would have produced generics under a different leadership model that wants to check the box. Whether this is the right decision for this specific issue is a different story. But the fact that they aren't checking boxes for the sake of it is evidence of this style WAI.

WAI?

I would guess Working As Intended.

Re: Go is Google's language, not ours

#407

Post by pier25 »

doesnt_know wrote: post #162

I'm going to risk being labeled an ~incompetent dev~ or whatever but learning golang was seriously a breath of fresh air compared to literally any language I have ever tried to grok before. Everything felt like it was there on purpose. It always seemed like there was a "proper" way to achieve something. Being told to use this opinionated formatter was like removing a 40kg bag after a bush walk. You never have to worr…

> I'm going to risk being labeled an ~incompetent dev~

Why is that?

I thought your comment made a lot of sense.

Re: Go is Google's language, not ours

#408

Post by ivolimmen »

Nice to read all the comments on this story. The story is about the how Go is not truly open source and community driven and the flame war starts on how Java does not implement generics correctly etc. Guys: each language has it's benefits and it's shortcomings. If we want (need?) more control over the language, can't we just fork it? Start a new language that is based on the current implementation of Go?

Re: Go is Google's language, not ours

#409

Post by nickpsecurity »

pjmlp wrote: post #149

I pity the recent CS graduates that weren't able to attend a decent CS degree and need Go to fit their mental model.

Although true for programming CS, I have to note here that Google hires people who didn't study programming per se. One guy I know who worked at Google did processor design. They hired him for web programming or something about as unrelated as possible. Who knows how many extra-bright, barely-programming grads they pull in. They need them to learn quickly to be productive as closely to day 1 as possible. Hence, Go.

I think Python was main language in that space before Go. It's not as simple or performant as Go, though. So, this was a major improvement even if I think they could've designed an even better language from our perspective.

Re: Go is Google's language, not ours

#410

Post by wk0 »

Illniyar wrote: post #109
munmaek wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With any luck, all will be footnotes in ten years. Java and C# are not going anywhere, especially now that .NET works on OSX and Linux. Swift, unlikely. Go, still uncertain. It's fairly short-sighted to criticize a language and hope it dies out in usage just because a corporation is chiefly responsible for it. [0]: https://dotnetfoundation.org/about

Swift has garnered little traction outside iOS development, while other languages are gaining traction inside iOS development (javascript mostly, but Kotlin is also trying to make headway into iOS development). I won't put survival rating for it to be very big. I'm sure Apple would keep it for decades to come, but I'm wouldn't bet on it being anywhere near as popular as it is now in the future.

IBM seems to be using swift on the server [1], probably most notably with their Kitura web framework [2].

TensorFlow also has a Swift API in development [3]. The people at FastAI seem quite excited about it [4].

[1] https://developer.ibm.com/swift/

[2] https://github.com/IBM-Swift/Kitura

[3] https://www.tensorflow.org/swift/api_docs

[4] https://www.fast.ai/2019/03/06/fastai-swift/

Post reply on HN