4 ms·

Something being formulated exactly 40 years ago in academia doesn’t count as proving its value over 40 years especially given that broad support of the concept

Something being formulated exactly 40 years ago in academia doesn’t count as proving its value over 40 years especially given that broad support of the concept is new being supported by golang and at best the marginally popular clojure. The golang faq specifically says that csp is the basis of its concurrency. Combine those 2 facts & I think it’s fair to say golang is willing to base things (central ones even) on untried ideas, which directly contradicts your stated position which was precisely that no dependency management scheme lives up to the precedent of the other accepted features of the language. This is trivially proven incorrect via looking at other language dependency management schemes that have much more broadly proven their worth.

mseepgood 9y ago
> doesn’t count as proving its value over 40 years The Go designers used CSP over the course of many decades via Newsqueak, Alef, Limbo and Plan 9 C's libthread.
- pjmlp 9y ago
  Newsqueak, Alef, Limbo and Plan 9 C's failed spectacularly in the market, nothing to brag about as proven technologies. In fact, as nice as Go might be, if it had the AT&T Research Labs stamp instead of Google's, it would been just as successful.
- kasey_junk 9y ago
  As only a go user & not a contributer, that describes more the paradigm I’ve observed for how golang chooses the features to add. Did the principles enjoy a feature while using it on Plan 9? Likely to be included. A feature having broad industry or academic backing, or a long history? Immaterial.
weberc2 9y ago
> Combine those 2 facts & I think it’s fair to say golang is willing to base things (central ones even) on untried ideas, which directly contradicts your stated position It absolutely doesn't contradict my stated position. I was clear about that in my previous post. CSP inspired Go's features (in that sense alone it is "the basis for Go's concurrency" as alluded to by the Go FAQ) , but as I mentioned, it's not integral to Go in any way, and very few programs are modeled in CSP fashion.

mseepgood 9y ago

> doesn’t count as proving its value over 40 years The Go designers used CSP over the course of many decades via Newsqueak, Alef, Limbo and Plan 9 C's libthread.

pjmlp 9y ago
Newsqueak, Alef, Limbo and Plan 9 C's failed spectacularly in the market, nothing to brag about as proven technologies. In fact, as nice as Go might be, if it had the AT&T Research Labs stamp instead of Google's, it would been just as successful.
kasey_junk 9y ago
As only a go user & not a contributer, that describes more the paradigm I’ve observed for how golang chooses the features to add. Did the principles enjoy a feature while using it on Plan 9? Likely to be included. A feature having broad industry or academic backing, or a long history? Immaterial.

weberc2 9y ago

> Combine those 2 facts & I think it’s fair to say golang is willing to base things (central ones even) on untried ideas, which directly contradicts your stated position It absolutely doesn't contradict my stated position. I was clear about that in my previous post. CSP inspired Go's features (in that sense alone it is "the basis for Go's concurrency" as alluded to by the Go FAQ) , but as I mentioned, it's not integral to Go in any way, and very few programs are modeled in CSP fashion.