3 ms·
> Precisely as I said, "The only major benefits over, say, C++ or Java (which I don't think are very impressive languages) are a few convenient threading primit
by weberc2 10y ago
> Precisely as I said, "The only major benefits over, say, C++ or Java (which I don't think are very impressive languages) are a few convenient threading primitives"
I commented before your edit. The question I responded to was something like "What can you do in Go that you can't do in C++ or Java?"
> 99% of projects don't need green threads.
Perhaps not need, but many of those projects are paying a large opportunity cost in today's no-free-lunch, multicore, I/O-bound world.
> But for those that do, I'd much rather use a language better suited to the purpose, like Haskell or Erlang.
I dispute that Haskell or Erlang are better suited for the purpose. And good luck finding Haskell and Erlang developers.
> This isn't a very convincing argument for Go.
I disagree.
- wtetzner 10y ago> And good luck finding Haskell and Erlang developers. Unless you need a massive number of developers, or you're located out in the middle of nowhere, it really shouldn't be too difficult.
- weberc2 10y agoI disagree.
- wtetzner 10y agoHave you tried hiring Erlang or Haskell developers? It's not like they don't exist. In fact, there are likely many developers that would love to take an Erlang or Haskell job, but there aren't that many opportunities.
- weberc2 10y agoI don't dispute that they exist, I dispute the economics of finding them compared to finding or training new Go developers. Frankly, no one is going to replace their entire team and start a hiring campaign because Haskell or Erlang (arguably) make concurrency slightly easier than Go.
- di4na 10y agoYou would be surprised by the result. Economically it make sense. And i would argue that production ready Elixir/erlang is easier to teach than production ready Go.