5 ms·
The rebranding might make the language look sleeker and more enterprisey but it looks that they're rejecting their spirit of playfulness in order to appeal to t
by jxub 9y ago
The rebranding might make the language look sleeker and more enterprisey but it looks that they're rejecting their spirit of playfulness in order to appeal to the likes of Oracle clients and take away more Java mindshare.
- woolvalley 9y agoTBH I've always thought of Go as Google's Java. With some decisions to make developing at super-big-co even nicer, which helps you at google scale.
- amelius 9y agoI always thought of Go as Google's Erlang.
- jupp0r 9y agoI think this gets too many downvotes. Yes, static vs dynamic typing. Yes, imperative vs functional language. On the other hand, CSP is conceptually fairly close to the Actor Model, so there are definitely similarities. I've written go code that looks similar to Erlang (a go routine receiving messages from an `interface{}` channel in a for loop and then dispatching based on the type.
- zzzcpan 9y agoConceptually they are worlds apart. Supervision trees are even impossible in idiomatic Go.
- jupp0r 9y agoSupervision trees have nothing to do with Actors or CSP. I can recommend reading the original papers. Golang not well supporting supervision trees has more to do with the runtime not allowing to kill a goroutine. See http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2930 http://www.jerf.org/iri/post/2930
- ryeguy 9y agoErlang is so much more than just green threads. They're not at all comparable.
- iaabtpbtpnn 9y agoI've always thought of Go as Google's Java 1.4.
- pjmlp 9y agoNot really, more like Java 1.1. Java 1.4 already had much more features and library offerings than Go still lacks.
- AsyncAwait 9y agoThe Go standard library is top notch, especially for networking.
- pjmlp 9y agoMight be, but it is a tiny portion of Java's standard library, including networking, even when comparing against Java 1.4, let alone 10.
- wvenable 9y agoGo's language design is fundamentally about rigidity and consistency -- and I'm not saying that's bad -- but it's pretty far from playful. I'd consider languages like JavaScript, Ruby, and Python to be playful languages by comparison.