4 ms·

Which is why I said, we (mostly) agree: Go is great for web backend development, as I've never disputed in any reply, quite the contrary. My point was and is, t

by fnl 9y ago

Which is why I said, we (mostly) agree: Go is great for web backend development, as I've never disputed in any reply, quite the contrary. My point was and is, that's all there is to "compare" - even if that area might be the biggest domain in IT right now.

fauigerzigerk 9y ago
Here's what you said: >Go is an alternative for C (for services), PHP, and server-side JS. I don't understand why people keep comparing it to languages like C++, C#, D, Java, Rust, or Scala. Your claim was that there is no overlapping area of application and hence comparing the languages makes no sense. That is where we disagree if that is still your opinion. Besides, I see abolutely no reason why Go couldn't be used for writing something like Cassandra, Kafka, Spark, Hadoop or a core banking system. None of these are specifically Web backends. Equally, I see very little reason why Docker or Kubernetes could not be written in Java or C#.
- fnl 9y ago
  I think our semantical differences are mostly due that there I was referring to language level facilities, then, while even in that post I clearly underlined Go's utility for web development. As to transactional processing, there's a reason why that's not using GC languages and why the banking and oil industry are one of the few mainframe clients left. Just because you can do X with Y, it doesn't mean it's economically or technically feasible.
  - fauigerzigerk 9y ago
    Don't underestimate how much our industry is driven by fashion, culture, corporate backing, historical coincidence and inertia. Very few decisions are based on technical merit. Go read some of those "why we switched from X to Y". It's 99% rubbish ex-post rationalization of nothingness. In my opinion there is only one significant technical dividing line between language implementations: Mandatory automatic garbage collection. No other purely technical characteristic makes a whole lot of difference for the sort of problems that can be solved with comparable results using different language implementations. That's why it doesn't make much sense to me to put Go in a different basket than Java or C#. Doesn't mean there is no reason to prefer one over the other of course.
    - fnl 9y ago
      If your baskets are GC vs. managed languages, I fully agree. But I don't think that comparing some contents in either of those baskets among each other necessarily is a task worth tackling...
      - fauigerzigerk 9y ago
        So if I'm starting a new project and I know that I can achieve the same result with either Go or Scala, how do I choose without comparing?
        fnl 9y ago
        What I meant is that the lack of features in Go has made it easy for us: All existing comparisons are probably sufficient. All you need to decide on now is if you prefer syntactic simplicity over percieved feature boat, if it's a web development project or not, and if you can benefit from existing code in your language of choice or not. Pick at least 2/3 to decide... :-)

by fnl 9y ago

fauigerzigerk 9y ago

Here's what you said: >Go is an alternative for C (for services), PHP, and server-side JS. I don't understand why people keep comparing it to languages like C++, C#, D, Java, Rust, or Scala. Your claim was that there is no overlapping area of application and hence comparing the languages makes no sense. That is where we disagree if that is still your opinion. Besides, I see abolutely no reason why Go couldn't be used for writing something like Cassandra, Kafka, Spark, Hadoop or a core banking system. None of these are specifically Web backends. Equally, I see very little reason why Docker or Kubernetes could not be written in Java or C#.

fnl 9y ago
I think our semantical differences are mostly due that there I was referring to language level facilities, then, while even in that post I clearly underlined Go's utility for web development. As to transactional processing, there's a reason why that's not using GC languages and why the banking and oil industry are one of the few mainframe clients left. Just because you can do X with Y, it doesn't mean it's economically or technically feasible.
- fauigerzigerk 9y ago
  Don't underestimate how much our industry is driven by fashion, culture, corporate backing, historical coincidence and inertia. Very few decisions are based on technical merit. Go read some of those "why we switched from X to Y". It's 99% rubbish ex-post rationalization of nothingness. In my opinion there is only one significant technical dividing line between language implementations: Mandatory automatic garbage collection. No other purely technical characteristic makes a whole lot of difference for the sort of problems that can be solved with comparable results using different language implementations. That's why it doesn't make much sense to me to put Go in a different basket than Java or C#. Doesn't mean there is no reason to prefer one over the other of course.
  - fnl 9y ago
    If your baskets are GC vs. managed languages, I fully agree. But I don't think that comparing some contents in either of those baskets among each other necessarily is a task worth tackling...
    - fauigerzigerk 9y ago
      So if I'm starting a new project and I know that I can achieve the same result with either Go or Scala, how do I choose without comparing?
      - fnl 9y ago
        What I meant is that the lack of features in Go has made it easy for us: All existing comparisons are probably sufficient. All you need to decide on now is if you prefer syntactic simplicity over percieved feature boat, if it's a web development project or not, and if you can benefit from existing code in your language of choice or not. Pick at least 2/3 to decide... :-)