6 ms·

> If it weren't from Rob Pike and the marketing of Google, I don't think it would be nearly as popular as it is. This is only true in part. The fact is that Go

> If it weren't from Rob Pike and the marketing of Google, I don't think it would be nearly as popular as it is. This is only true in part. The fact is that Go is a supremely accessible language (warts and all) that helps you get things done.

_asummers 8y ago
Yeah I could have omitted that line, but I do still think there's truth in it. If it weren't from a large company writing a ton of tooling in it (Kubernetes in particular), I think adoption would be significantly lower. It would be nonzero, and I don't mean to suggest it would be zero, but it would not be in the "top popularity class" in my opinion were it to not have that marketing arm behind it. I also think it's more optimized to Google's developers (read: huge army of disparate technical levels) than small/medium or even some larger shops. It's great that Kubernetes can be written in it, and that's a point in favor of it. But that doesn't make it a great language.
- Thaxll 8y ago
  What marketing? The only time I hear that is about people mad at Go being popular and not liking it, I've never seen marketing from Google toward Go. The language is popular because it's powerful and yet very simple to onboard, the standard lib is good as well as the documentation, that's why it's popular not because of Google. You mention Kubernetes, but forgot all the other widely used projects that are not from Google: Docker, Grafana, etcd, all the Hashicorp tools ( terraform, packer, consul .. ), Prometheus, InfluxDB, Hugo, CockroachDB ect ...
pjmlp 8y ago
Case in point, Go has its roots in Oberon-2 and Limbo, and we all know how they both went. Had Go been created while their authors would be working elsewhere, and it wouldn't have taken off like that. Naturally one can use Dart as counter example, but it only failed because Chrome and Angular teams weren't willing to keep pushing it forward.
- eternalban 8y ago
  "true in part ..." Sure, it would not get the initial visibility. But we would not keep using it if was an ineffective language.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    Actually we would. For example, even though I am not a big fan of Go, I have to use it when customers required us to deal with Docker or K8S. Just like I have my issues with C, but would certainly use it when writing an UNIX driver. Programming languages are products, and get used because of the eco-systems they carry along, bullet point features are usually secondary to that.
    - eternalban 8y ago
      Well, I guess we diverge in our views (besides affection for Go) in that I see the adoption of Go for Docker (init release 2013) & K8S (2015) as merit based choices. Go was made public in 2009. > Programming languages are products, and get used because of the eco-systems they carry along, bullet point features are usually secondary to that. Non-sequitur.
      - gmfawcett 8y ago
        It's absolutely relevant to the point that "we wouldn't keep using it if it wasn't an effective language" (modulo any disagreements about what "effective" means!). Many languages are heavily used due to network effects (popularity, marketing, community) and platform effects, not solely on technical merit. JavaScript and C come immediately to mind as examples of the platform effect on language selection. (The fact that modern JS transpilers exist merely papers over JS' dominant footing in the Web space.)
        davidw 8y ago
        I wrote a thing about the economics of programming languages a while back: https://www.welton.it/articles/programming_language_economics.html https://www.welton.it/articles/programming_language_economic... And it absolutely does make sense to view them as products in order to understand their uptake, or why they don't become popular.

_asummers 8y ago

Yeah I could have omitted that line, but I do still think there's truth in it. If it weren't from a large company writing a ton of tooling in it (Kubernetes in particular), I think adoption would be significantly lower. It would be nonzero, and I don't mean to suggest it would be zero, but it would not be in the "top popularity class" in my opinion were it to not have that marketing arm behind it. I also think it's more optimized to Google's developers (read: huge army of disparate technical levels) than small/medium or even some larger shops. It's great that Kubernetes can be written in it, and that's a point in favor of it. But that doesn't make it a great language.

Thaxll 8y ago
What marketing? The only time I hear that is about people mad at Go being popular and not liking it, I've never seen marketing from Google toward Go. The language is popular because it's powerful and yet very simple to onboard, the standard lib is good as well as the documentation, that's why it's popular not because of Google. You mention Kubernetes, but forgot all the other widely used projects that are not from Google: Docker, Grafana, etcd, all the Hashicorp tools ( terraform, packer, consul .. ), Prometheus, InfluxDB, Hugo, CockroachDB ect ...

pjmlp 8y ago

Case in point, Go has its roots in Oberon-2 and Limbo, and we all know how they both went. Had Go been created while their authors would be working elsewhere, and it wouldn't have taken off like that. Naturally one can use Dart as counter example, but it only failed because Chrome and Angular teams weren't willing to keep pushing it forward.

eternalban 8y ago
"true in part ..." Sure, it would not get the initial visibility. But we would not keep using it if was an ineffective language.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  Actually we would. For example, even though I am not a big fan of Go, I have to use it when customers required us to deal with Docker or K8S. Just like I have my issues with C, but would certainly use it when writing an UNIX driver. Programming languages are products, and get used because of the eco-systems they carry along, bullet point features are usually secondary to that.
  - eternalban 8y ago
    Well, I guess we diverge in our views (besides affection for Go) in that I see the adoption of Go for Docker (init release 2013) & K8S (2015) as merit based choices. Go was made public in 2009. > Programming languages are products, and get used because of the eco-systems they carry along, bullet point features are usually secondary to that. Non-sequitur.
    - gmfawcett 8y ago
      It's absolutely relevant to the point that "we wouldn't keep using it if it wasn't an effective language" (modulo any disagreements about what "effective" means!). Many languages are heavily used due to network effects (popularity, marketing, community) and platform effects, not solely on technical merit. JavaScript and C come immediately to mind as examples of the platform effect on language selection. (The fact that modern JS transpilers exist merely papers over JS' dominant footing in the Web space.)
      - davidw 8y ago
        I wrote a thing about the economics of programming languages a while back: https://www.welton.it/articles/programming_language_economics.html https://www.welton.it/articles/programming_language_economic... And it absolutely does make sense to view them as products in order to understand their uptake, or why they don't become popular.