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

Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

changelog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 135 posts

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#91

Post by gigatexal »

weberc2 wrote: post #41
catach wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I came to Go when modules had been released and found it much easier to understand than GOPATH style workflows. I guess to each their own. I agree, go build, and go distribution is so awesome.

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#92

Post by stevekablink »

mrath wrote: 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.

Rust may have a "higher learning curve" but it also takes a "learning curve" to learn to debug memory errors. I argue that it's actually quicker to learn Rust.

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#93

Post by fortran77 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #54
catach wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 see very little marketing for Go. Compare, for example, to C# when in came out, or Java when it did.

Did C# have actual "advertising" outside of msdn publications? It came out in 2000 and I don't recall seeing C# ads. (Print publications were out then.)

I picked it up early on and still use it (and F#) today. I've written a lot of custom desktop applications in it.

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#94

Post by rcoveson »

eddieh wrote: post #74
LanceH wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go is free as in freedom and paid for by someone else.

Specifically paid for by Google which, as far as I'm concerned, is the definition of ad supported.

Clever, but beside the point. "Content isn't free" is still not a reason to plead that others "consume the ads." Google doesn't offer Go on the _condition_ that you consume ads, nor does this podcast or interview offer itself to the Internet on the condition that you don't skip the first two minutes of it. If you're somebody who is opposed to the practice of advertising in general, by all means, skip it. Nobody should tell you not to.

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#95

Post by jbarham »

gitgud wrote: post #66

Slightly off topic: Why was the language named "Go"? I originally assumed that it was an abbreviation of Google (where it was developed) but I can't seem to find an information confirming that...

At one point the Go FAQ said that Go got its name because “Ogle” would be a good name for a Go debugger [1]. This was removed from the FAQ as a "non-answer" in 2015 [2]. I suspect the real reason is that it was a slightly risque joke...

Of course the Go keyword go is a constant reminder of Go's strong support for concurrency. (Note too the goroutine/coroutine pun.) It would be interesting to know which came first, the keyword or the name.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5182658 2. https://github.com/golang/go/commit/e4bd8e04087ac9e7c8b754df...

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#97

Post by pjmlp »

weberc2 wrote: post #44
dilyevsky wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because, the complexity doesn't go away, gets dumped into developers that keep re-writing boilerplate libraries that kind of compensate for the lacking features.

It happens all the time.

Language gets introduced at the sound of simplicity trumpet, tons of boilerplate libraries eventually appear, then if the language manages to make it in the mainstream, half baked features get introduced 'cause backwards compatibility.

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#98

Post by pjmlp »

geodel wrote: post #89
pjmlp wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dart lost the support from Chrome team, it was rescued by AdWords team and Flutter is trying to make it relevant, but given Android team answers, it is clear that a power struggle is going on across teams. Giliad is also a personality from language research hardly known by UNIX fans.

> it is clear that a power struggle is going on across teams. What this has got to do with Dart's popularity outside Google? > Giliad is also a personality from language research hardly known by UNIX fans. So unix fans did not let a superior language which was designed by real language researcher like Dart win?

Exactly, had Dart been accepted into other browsers, and TypeScript wouldn't probably matter nowadays.

Just like WebAssembly wouldn't be a thing had PNaCL been accepted by others.

For UNIX fans, whatever a former Bell Labs researcher states is gold, no criticism whatsoever allowed.

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#99

Post by pjmlp »

ramchip wrote: post #55
Thaxll wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Does it have to “beat” Go or die?

No, but it definitely needs a community big enough to keep it alive.

Re: Creating the Go Programming Language [audio]

#100

Post by pjmlp »

fortran77 wrote: post #93
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see very little marketing for Go. Compare, for example, to C# when in came out, or Java when it did.

Did C# have actual "advertising" outside of msdn publications? It came out in 2000 and I don't recall seeing C# ads. (Print publications were out then.) I picked it up early on and still use it (and F#) today. I've written a lot of custom desktop applications in it.

Yes, The C/C++ Users Journal, DrDobbs, PC World, and Computer Shopper run articles on it.

It was actually released in 2001.

Unless you are speaking about the alphas that MSFT Certified Partners had access to.

Post reply on HN