4 ms·
TBH 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.
by woolvalley 8y ago
TBH 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 8y agoI always thought of Go as Google's Erlang.
- jupp0r 8y 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 8y agoConceptually they are worlds apart. Supervision trees are even impossible in idiomatic Go.
- jupp0r 8y 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 8y agoErlang is so much more than just green threads. They're not at all comparable.
- iaabtpbtpnn 8y agoI've always thought of Go as Google's Java 1.4.
- pjmlp 8y agoNot really, more like Java 1.1. Java 1.4 already had much more features and library offerings than Go still lacks.
- AsyncAwait 8y agoThe Go standard library is top notch, especially for networking.
- pjmlp 8y 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.