4 ms·

I get your point; GO is a low hanging fruit from the marketing point of view: it is a smart business move; because as we all know markets as well as societies h

I get your point; GO is a low hanging fruit from the marketing point of view: it is a smart business move; because as we all know markets as well as societies have a strong inertia in regard of consumed products. But that doesn't change the technical opinion of the topic and the fact that we are still undeveloped using "C+" (aka go). P.S. I am being a bit too hard on Go, but my whole point is that after seeing really complete solutions for this problem, everything else pales next to them and that we still encounter unnecessary problems.

laumars 8y ago
I both agree and disagree with you. More sophisticated languages do have an obvious benefit to a great many problems and you're also right that often the problem is the developer's capabilities rather than the language. But you could also flip that argument and say a good developer could write good code in any language so why bother with anything more sophisticated. However arguments about the developer aside, Go has other advantages that drew me to it. Such as * cross-compiling requiring no additional effort aside setting an env var (It's been a why since I've written C++ but I seem to recall no end of bother there. Again a seasoned developer will argue it's easy but I certainly didn't find it that way) * It compiles down to a portable executable (there are surprisingly few languages that do that) * It's not overly verbose. Ok, this is only true if you're not having to work around generics or the "if err != nil" syntax. But for most problems I've found Go to be refreshingly direct. * It enforces strict code layout guidelines so I can pick up anyone's code and can run with it easily enough. * Compiler error messages are very easy to understand. Sure there are other languages that cover some, maybe most of those points. But few cover all. Which is why I often describe Go as "a boring language that's pleasant for just getting shit done". Which is why I tend to favour Go these days despite having learned more than a dozen different languages over the years. Needless to say a great many of people - both on and off HN - will disagree with me. But that's the beauty of personal opinion. Programming languages really are just the realm of preference.
- mixedCase 8y ago
  > But you could also flip that argument and say a good developer could write good code in any language so why bother with anything more sophisticated. Because both inexperienced and experienced developers will be prevented from doing the wrong thing more often when using a better language.
  - laumars 8y ago
    I do agree with your point but this is about more than just language safety. The point the GP was making was more about expressiveness of languages (or at least that was how I interpreted it). You can have safety even in arguably unsophisticated languages (eg Visual Basic pre-dotnet). However it's true that some languages use their expression as a method of enabling developers to write less buggy software.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- nudpiedo 8y ago
  I mostly agree with you in regard the positive aspects of its tooling, however there are plenty of libraries in Go which use the void pointer, casting is a common thing and the whole duck typing is based on interfaces which is at least uncomfortable. On top of that Go is slower than C++ but more productive because of the lack of distractions which is why I agree with the "a boring language that's pleasant for just getting shit done".
  - laumars 8y ago
    Of course Go has its problems. There's no such thing as a perfect language because everyone has their own requirements. That's why I repeatedly state that a choice of language usually just boils down to personal preference. I mean if performance Vs C++ was a primary concern then you're limiting yourself to quite a small subset of languages, most of which either have a steep learning curve and/or sacrifice security. This doesnt make sense for the majority of developers out there since very few people really need the performance of C++. That's not to say performance doesn't matter but rather Go's performance is more than adequate for most of the applications it is applied to. To further that point just look at how I've used Go. I've written two FUSE file systems and a UNIX $SHELL in Go and found the performance to be good enough even on my relatively modest dev machine. I've also written log file parsers that can handle gigabytes or records in seconds. I'm happy with that level of performance because for me developer productivety matters a lot more since I have 2 small kids so hobby projects get very little time allocated to them. This means I'd rather prototype code then optimise later rather than spend comparatively longer building a POC that ultimately might never get enough time to see the light of day. However you will have your own set of requirements which Go might underperform on and those reasons are as important to you as my requirements are to me. This is why arguing about how some languages are bad or which are the best is about as worthwhile as arguing which colour is the "best".
sonofblah 8y ago
I don't believe the notions of 'marketing' or 'smart business move' played heavily into the design and development of Go.
weberc2 8y ago
I think the problem is that we assign too much importance to the last 5% of type safety. Go’s typing guarantees are somewhere between Haskell and Python, and it ends up being a very practical place on the spectrum. Further, have a great type system is just one of many competing factors; tooling has to be good, deployment has to be good, runtime has to be good, testing has to be good, libraries have to be good, code has to be readable, etc etc. Most languages drive hard at one of these; Go gets 90% of the way on all of them.

laumars 8y ago

I both agree and disagree with you. More sophisticated languages do have an obvious benefit to a great many problems and you're also right that often the problem is the developer's capabilities rather than the language. But you could also flip that argument and say a good developer could write good code in any language so why bother with anything more sophisticated. However arguments about the developer aside, Go has other advantages that drew me to it. Such as * cross-compiling requiring no additional effort aside setting an env var (It's been a why since I've written C++ but I seem to recall no end of bother there. Again a seasoned developer will argue it's easy but I certainly didn't find it that way) * It compiles down to a portable executable (there are surprisingly few languages that do that) * It's not overly verbose. Ok, this is only true if you're not having to work around generics or the "if err != nil" syntax. But for most problems I've found Go to be refreshingly direct. * It enforces strict code layout guidelines so I can pick up anyone's code and can run with it easily enough. * Compiler error messages are very easy to understand. Sure there are other languages that cover some, maybe most of those points. But few cover all. Which is why I often describe Go as "a boring language that's pleasant for just getting shit done". Which is why I tend to favour Go these days despite having learned more than a dozen different languages over the years. Needless to say a great many of people - both on and off HN - will disagree with me. But that's the beauty of personal opinion. Programming languages really are just the realm of preference.

mixedCase 8y ago
> But you could also flip that argument and say a good developer could write good code in any language so why bother with anything more sophisticated. Because both inexperienced and experienced developers will be prevented from doing the wrong thing more often when using a better language.
- laumars 8y ago
  I do agree with your point but this is about more than just language safety. The point the GP was making was more about expressiveness of languages (or at least that was how I interpreted it). You can have safety even in arguably unsophisticated languages (eg Visual Basic pre-dotnet). However it's true that some languages use their expression as a method of enabling developers to write less buggy software.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
nudpiedo 8y ago
I mostly agree with you in regard the positive aspects of its tooling, however there are plenty of libraries in Go which use the void pointer, casting is a common thing and the whole duck typing is based on interfaces which is at least uncomfortable. On top of that Go is slower than C++ but more productive because of the lack of distractions which is why I agree with the "a boring language that's pleasant for just getting shit done".
- laumars 8y ago
  Of course Go has its problems. There's no such thing as a perfect language because everyone has their own requirements. That's why I repeatedly state that a choice of language usually just boils down to personal preference. I mean if performance Vs C++ was a primary concern then you're limiting yourself to quite a small subset of languages, most of which either have a steep learning curve and/or sacrifice security. This doesnt make sense for the majority of developers out there since very few people really need the performance of C++. That's not to say performance doesn't matter but rather Go's performance is more than adequate for most of the applications it is applied to. To further that point just look at how I've used Go. I've written two FUSE file systems and a UNIX $SHELL in Go and found the performance to be good enough even on my relatively modest dev machine. I've also written log file parsers that can handle gigabytes or records in seconds. I'm happy with that level of performance because for me developer productivety matters a lot more since I have 2 small kids so hobby projects get very little time allocated to them. This means I'd rather prototype code then optimise later rather than spend comparatively longer building a POC that ultimately might never get enough time to see the light of day. However you will have your own set of requirements which Go might underperform on and those reasons are as important to you as my requirements are to me. This is why arguing about how some languages are bad or which are the best is about as worthwhile as arguing which colour is the "best".

sonofblah 8y ago

I don't believe the notions of 'marketing' or 'smart business move' played heavily into the design and development of Go.

weberc2 8y ago

I think the problem is that we assign too much importance to the last 5% of type safety. Go’s typing guarantees are somewhere between Haskell and Python, and it ends up being a very practical place on the spectrum. Further, have a great type system is just one of many competing factors; tooling has to be good, deployment has to be good, runtime has to be good, testing has to be good, libraries have to be good, code has to be readable, etc etc. Most languages drive hard at one of these; Go gets 90% of the way on all of them.