8 ms·

>Why would you choose Rust over Go or Node? Oh Jesus, here we go again. They are catering to different domains! Node is intended for doing backend programming

>Why would you choose Rust over Go or Node? Oh Jesus, here we go again. They are catering to different domains! Node is intended for doing backend programming for supporting web applications. And there are many better alternatives IMO. Rust is intended for systems programming manly (not limited to that, of course). It also would be good for certain high-performance backends. As for Go, I'll let Rob Pike (Go creator) explain the reason for Go: The key point here is our programmers are Googlers, they’re not researchers. They’re typically, fairly young, fresh out of school, probably learned Java, maybe learned C or C++, probably learned Python. They’re not capable of understanding a brilliant language but we want to use them to build good software. So, the language that we give them has to be easy for them to understand and easy to adopt.

hinkley 9y ago
Every single time I read this Rob Pike quote I have an overwhelming desire to find Rob, take him out for beers and ask him, off the record, what he thinks of the Google hiring processes. Because what he's saying here is, in my opinion at least, anathema to company line about who they hire.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- machinemob 9y ago
  What is the company line that you're referring to that Rob Pike contradicts?
  - Jtsummers 9y ago
    > The key point here is our programmers are Googlers, they’re not researchers. I know things have changed, but in the early '00s good luck getting hired to Google without a PhD, masters minimum. 4.0 dual major in CS and psychology from Georgia Tech, graduated in 4 years with both of those degrees. Yeah, no thanks. [Not me, a friend of mine who wanted to work for them] They always insisted, at every hiring event I attended through around 2008, that they only hired the "best of the best" and things like that. If that's true, then this: > They’re not capable of understanding a brilliant language Isn't true. So Rob has it right and Google is hiring really mediocre people. Or Rob has it wrong but only saw the mediocre hires. EDIT: Cleaned up the grammar a bit.
    - handbanana 9y ago
      Well they can't possibly have the same hiring bar they used to, due to the amount of hires they need. When you're a smaller company, or a rapidly growing one, you can't really afford a bad egg. At google's current size, they can. To be clear, I think their hiring standard has dropped. But that doesn't mean they don't still have very talented people. Or that their average competence level isn't high compared to other companies
      - flavio81 9y ago
        It seems they want cheap code monkeys. At least from Pike's quote.
        hinkley 9y ago
        I don't know if it means code monkeys, although I agree you could interpret Pike that way. When you look at root cause analysis you're going to see everybody's bad days, and your bad days can be pretty mediocre. I've lost count of the number of engineers I've pissed off by implying that they or their coworkers might in fact be human beings and thus prone to errors. White knuckling (as the term is applied - as a pejorative - in Alcoholics Anonymous) is rampant in software. If you make a mistake it's because you're bad and you should TRY HARDER LOSER. Not because our architecture or tools are error prone/obtuse. You could say the pressure cooker interviewer process is looking for people who don't cave under pressure, but I don't think that just because you don't crumble doesn't mean you aren't incapacitated. I suspect it ends up selecting for people who think working under intense pressure is normal and there's no point in trying to relieve that pressure, ie working smarter.
    - dv_dt 9y ago
      Or, I suspect the quote is mistranscribed or was spoken with a mental "shortcut" and should be: They’re not [in]capable of understanding a brilliant language, but we want to use them to build good software. i.e. they're smart people, but we don't want them to focus those smarts on the language itself, but on writing software with the language...
    - 9y ago
s2g 9y ago
We hire the best of the best with our amazing interview process. Still too stupid for anything more complex than go.

hinkley 9y ago

Every single time I read this Rob Pike quote I have an overwhelming desire to find Rob, take him out for beers and ask him, off the record, what he thinks of the Google hiring processes. Because what he's saying here is, in my opinion at least, anathema to company line about who they hire.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
machinemob 9y ago
What is the company line that you're referring to that Rob Pike contradicts?
- Jtsummers 9y ago
  > The key point here is our programmers are Googlers, they’re not researchers. I know things have changed, but in the early '00s good luck getting hired to Google without a PhD, masters minimum. 4.0 dual major in CS and psychology from Georgia Tech, graduated in 4 years with both of those degrees. Yeah, no thanks. [Not me, a friend of mine who wanted to work for them] They always insisted, at every hiring event I attended through around 2008, that they only hired the "best of the best" and things like that. If that's true, then this: > They’re not capable of understanding a brilliant language Isn't true. So Rob has it right and Google is hiring really mediocre people. Or Rob has it wrong but only saw the mediocre hires. EDIT: Cleaned up the grammar a bit.
  - handbanana 9y ago
    Well they can't possibly have the same hiring bar they used to, due to the amount of hires they need. When you're a smaller company, or a rapidly growing one, you can't really afford a bad egg. At google's current size, they can. To be clear, I think their hiring standard has dropped. But that doesn't mean they don't still have very talented people. Or that their average competence level isn't high compared to other companies
    - flavio81 9y ago
      It seems they want cheap code monkeys. At least from Pike's quote.
      - hinkley 9y ago
        I don't know if it means code monkeys, although I agree you could interpret Pike that way. When you look at root cause analysis you're going to see everybody's bad days, and your bad days can be pretty mediocre. I've lost count of the number of engineers I've pissed off by implying that they or their coworkers might in fact be human beings and thus prone to errors. White knuckling (as the term is applied - as a pejorative - in Alcoholics Anonymous) is rampant in software. If you make a mistake it's because you're bad and you should TRY HARDER LOSER. Not because our architecture or tools are error prone/obtuse. You could say the pressure cooker interviewer process is looking for people who don't cave under pressure, but I don't think that just because you don't crumble doesn't mean you aren't incapacitated. I suspect it ends up selecting for people who think working under intense pressure is normal and there's no point in trying to relieve that pressure, ie working smarter.
  - dv_dt 9y ago
    Or, I suspect the quote is mistranscribed or was spoken with a mental "shortcut" and should be: They’re not [in]capable of understanding a brilliant language, but we want to use them to build good software. i.e. they're smart people, but we don't want them to focus those smarts on the language itself, but on writing software with the language...
  - 9y ago

s2g 9y ago

We hire the best of the best with our amazing interview process. Still too stupid for anything more complex than go.