10 ms·

> Is TypeScript good enough? Yes. Once you move to TS, it's inconvenient to move back to JS > Will developers be open to alternatives? I would like to see G

by smdz 10y ago

> Is TypeScript good enough? Yes. Once you move to TS, it's inconvenient to move back to JS > Will developers be open to alternatives? I would like to see GoLang supported in the browser (natively, not transpiled). Go has some awesome potential that's probably being wasted by limiting it to systems programming. Before Go I might have said C#. However, sometimes I want my stuff to be strongly typed, and sometimes I want to keep it flexible to change types.

KirinDave 10y ago
Do you really think Go is that good? I look at it as a very awkward language in many ways. 1. Go's got just... broken error handling. Please write a dozen if (err != nil) gates in a row and try not to mess up. 2. Go's principle concurrency primitive, channels, is actually very slow as per its implementation and is often avoided because of it. 3. #2 may be a blessing in disguise because working with large single-delivery channel pipelinesis actually quite awkward. Our normal go-to techniques of exception handling and trace debugging don't handle it well outside of very small contexts. 40 years of debuggers all focus on the call stack and Go smashes that. 4. Go's quite convenient for a small team banging out software but for a large team over a long period of time, we still don't have access to the versioning and build systems Google had that make a lack of good version control feasible. 5. Despite being a language all about I/O, Go brings no real new innovations in I/O to the table. 6. Go's developer mantra is at least as patronizing as Python's. Probably more so.
- golergka 10y ago
  > Go's principle concurrency primitive, channels, is actually very slow as per its implementation and is often avoided because of it. I've only heard the opposite about it (only used Go on hobby project, so no first-hand knowledge). Can you please elaborate or give some links that discuss it? > Go's developer mantra is at least as patronizing as Python's. Probably more so. Are you referring to limiting developer's freedom?
  - holydude 10y ago
    Well channels use mutexes underneath and they are "slow". So slow in this case is very relative.
    - KirinDave 10y ago
      They don't need to be. But using channels for message passing instead of actors makes performance difficult.
    - KirinDave 10y ago
      Go channels are slower than go mutexes for the same task set. See: http://www.jtolds.com/writing/2016/03/go-channels-are-bad-and-you-should-feel-bad/ http://www.jtolds.com/writing/2016/03/go-channels-are-bad-an...
- sergiotapia 10y ago
  Go's kafkaesque error handling made me loathe writing code. No language has ever done that.
- smdz 10y ago
  > Do you really think Go is that good? Its not that good yet. It doesn't even have the capacity to replace my Python usage yet. What I miss is the community driven libraries/packages - including sci-computing libs. If Golang is supported in browser, things could change for it quickly. Its not the stuff like error handling that irks me - atleast not in comparison to JS callbacks and promises. I think the error handling is necessary. In Go, you could always ignore errors with underscores. But then ignoring errors works great until it doesn't. :)
  - graphememes 10y ago
    However, we want to bring something better to the web not something that is detrimental in hopes that thing itself becomes better. Go is not a good fit.
- krzyk 10y ago
  > 6. Go's developer mantra is at least as patronizing as Python's. Probably more so. What do you mean by that?
  - smonff 10y ago
    I would also like to know.
  - KirinDave 10y ago
    One of Go's design principles is that "we're full of untalented junior programmers who wouldn't know what to do with fancy techniques anyways." Sort of like Python's multi-decade insistence that Lambdas confuse people despite the fact that it's standard after massive popular demand even in Java. It's quite insulting, if you ask me. Sort of like an elder telling a teen the power tools are off limits because they are "only 16 and not coordinated enough yet to use the table saw without losing a finger."
graphememes 10y ago
So typescript doesn't give you an escape hatch. To me Typescript feels like a poor mans Action Script.

by smdz 10y ago

KirinDave 10y ago

Do you really think Go is that good? I look at it as a very awkward language in many ways. 1. Go's got just... broken error handling. Please write a dozen if (err != nil) gates in a row and try not to mess up. 2. Go's principle concurrency primitive, channels, is actually very slow as per its implementation and is often avoided because of it. 3. #2 may be a blessing in disguise because working with large single-delivery channel pipelinesis actually quite awkward. Our normal go-to techniques of exception handling and trace debugging don't handle it well outside of very small contexts. 40 years of debuggers all focus on the call stack and Go smashes that. 4. Go's quite convenient for a small team banging out software but for a large team over a long period of time, we still don't have access to the versioning and build systems Google had that make a lack of good version control feasible. 5. Despite being a language all about I/O, Go brings no real new innovations in I/O to the table. 6. Go's developer mantra is at least as patronizing as Python's. Probably more so.

golergka 10y ago
> Go's principle concurrency primitive, channels, is actually very slow as per its implementation and is often avoided because of it. I've only heard the opposite about it (only used Go on hobby project, so no first-hand knowledge). Can you please elaborate or give some links that discuss it? > Go's developer mantra is at least as patronizing as Python's. Probably more so. Are you referring to limiting developer's freedom?
- holydude 10y ago
  Well channels use mutexes underneath and they are "slow". So slow in this case is very relative.
  - KirinDave 10y ago
    They don't need to be. But using channels for message passing instead of actors makes performance difficult.
  - KirinDave 10y ago
    Go channels are slower than go mutexes for the same task set. See: http://www.jtolds.com/writing/2016/03/go-channels-are-bad-and-you-should-feel-bad/ http://www.jtolds.com/writing/2016/03/go-channels-are-bad-an...
sergiotapia 10y ago
Go's kafkaesque error handling made me loathe writing code. No language has ever done that.
smdz 10y ago
> Do you really think Go is that good? Its not that good yet. It doesn't even have the capacity to replace my Python usage yet. What I miss is the community driven libraries/packages - including sci-computing libs. If Golang is supported in browser, things could change for it quickly. Its not the stuff like error handling that irks me - atleast not in comparison to JS callbacks and promises. I think the error handling is necessary. In Go, you could always ignore errors with underscores. But then ignoring errors works great until it doesn't. :)
- graphememes 10y ago
  However, we want to bring something better to the web not something that is detrimental in hopes that thing itself becomes better. Go is not a good fit.
krzyk 10y ago
> 6. Go's developer mantra is at least as patronizing as Python's. Probably more so. What do you mean by that?
- smonff 10y ago
  I would also like to know.
- KirinDave 10y ago
  One of Go's design principles is that "we're full of untalented junior programmers who wouldn't know what to do with fancy techniques anyways." Sort of like Python's multi-decade insistence that Lambdas confuse people despite the fact that it's standard after massive popular demand even in Java. It's quite insulting, if you ask me. Sort of like an elder telling a teen the power tools are off limits because they are "only 16 and not coordinated enough yet to use the table saw without losing a finger."

graphememes 10y ago

So typescript doesn't give you an escape hatch. To me Typescript feels like a poor mans Action Script.