4 ms·

The team has world class compiler and GC experts. You should know better.

coldtea 8y ago
Who do you mean? People who have wrote some successful language are not necessarily "world class compiler and GC experts", and it's even less correlated with "having kept up with the last 30+ years of PL research" as mentioned above. Would you call e.g. Kernighan or Guido "world class compiler and GC experts", compared to people like Anders Hejlsberg, Lars Bak, Martin Odersky, Wirth, Simon Peyton Jones, Lattner, and co, who are experts devoted to exactly PL (and don't miss real-world accolades). Robert Griesemer might come close, but he doesn't appear to be the driving force. Even more importantly, does Go strike you as the product of "PL expertise", or just a competent, pragmatic, if humble, compiler, the likes of which are many (and even more full featured, even from smaller teams)? What I see Go having more is adoption and libs (probably due to Google's full-time dev support and branding). Not some PL upper hand over other languages like Rust, Crystal, Zig, Nim, etc.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Thaxll 8y ago
  What exactly from other small team have: - dead simple cross compiling - multi platforms / arch ( there are many for Go: https://gist.github.com/asukakenji/f15ba7e588ac42795f421b48b8aede63 https://gist.github.com/asukakenji/f15ba7e588ac42795f421b48b... ) - no dependencies - fast compilation - good performance - good debugging - rock solid and production ready I don't know any compiler from smaller team that matches the Go one, it's one of the reason why people use Go, compiling things is fast and easy, from my raspbery pi I can compile a win10 64bits exec with 0 problems 0 tools to install. ( ex: GOOS=windows GOARCH=amd64 go build . )
  - coldtea 8y ago
    None of those are arguments for "PL experts" as none of those are specifically signs of superior PL expertise. Multiple platforms for example are mainly about adoption (and not having much optimizations/assembly parts in the codebase, making it easier to port). Fast compilation is something several languages manage. And being fast to compile because you don't do much (in the way of optimizations) is something most languages can manage. "No dependencies" is also about adoption and resources (to replace popular dependencies). Nothing particular related to PL/compiler expertise about it. Go never had a "good debugging" story, and it doesn't have the best performance either (e.g. compare with Rust, D, Crystal, etc). In certain areas like text processing it's even worse.
    - foldr 8y ago
      > none of those are specifically signs of superior PL expertise. If none of the things on that list is a sign of superior PL expertise, one would have to ask whether PL expertise is actually worth very much.
- grumpydba 8y ago
  Richard Hudson, Ian Lance Taylor, David Chase, Austin Clements. The team is incredibly skilled. And of course Pike, Griesmer & Cox. I think that they are well aware of the trade-offs they make. And I also think that it is quite arrogant to say otherwise just because your tastes are different. Go ahead, please write the go haters' handbook. Or write rants saying 'go is obsolete'. And the future will say who has a viable legacy.

Who do you mean? People who have wrote some successful language are not necessarily "world class compiler and GC experts", and it's even less correlated with "having kept up with the last 30+ years of PL research" as mentioned above. Would you call e.g. Kernighan or Guido "world class compiler and GC experts", compared to people like Anders Hejlsberg, Lars Bak, Martin Odersky, Wirth, Simon Peyton Jones, Lattner, and co, who are experts devoted to exactly PL (and don't miss real-world accolades). Robert Griesemer might come close, but he doesn't appear to be the driving force. Even more importantly, does Go strike you as the product of "PL expertise", or just a competent, pragmatic, if humble, compiler, the likes of which are many (and even more full featured, even from smaller teams)? What I see Go having more is adoption and libs (probably due to Google's full-time dev support and branding). Not some PL upper hand over other languages like Rust, Crystal, Zig, Nim, etc.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Thaxll 8y ago
What exactly from other small team have: - dead simple cross compiling - multi platforms / arch ( there are many for Go: https://gist.github.com/asukakenji/f15ba7e588ac42795f421b48b8aede63 https://gist.github.com/asukakenji/f15ba7e588ac42795f421b48b... ) - no dependencies - fast compilation - good performance - good debugging - rock solid and production ready I don't know any compiler from smaller team that matches the Go one, it's one of the reason why people use Go, compiling things is fast and easy, from my raspbery pi I can compile a win10 64bits exec with 0 problems 0 tools to install. ( ex: GOOS=windows GOARCH=amd64 go build . )
- coldtea 8y ago
  None of those are arguments for "PL experts" as none of those are specifically signs of superior PL expertise. Multiple platforms for example are mainly about adoption (and not having much optimizations/assembly parts in the codebase, making it easier to port). Fast compilation is something several languages manage. And being fast to compile because you don't do much (in the way of optimizations) is something most languages can manage. "No dependencies" is also about adoption and resources (to replace popular dependencies). Nothing particular related to PL/compiler expertise about it. Go never had a "good debugging" story, and it doesn't have the best performance either (e.g. compare with Rust, D, Crystal, etc). In certain areas like text processing it's even worse.
  - foldr 8y ago
    > none of those are specifically signs of superior PL expertise. If none of the things on that list is a sign of superior PL expertise, one would have to ask whether PL expertise is actually worth very much.
grumpydba 8y ago
Richard Hudson, Ian Lance Taylor, David Chase, Austin Clements. The team is incredibly skilled. And of course Pike, Griesmer & Cox. I think that they are well aware of the trade-offs they make. And I also think that it is quite arrogant to say otherwise just because your tastes are different. Go ahead, please write the go haters' handbook. Or write rants saying 'go is obsolete'. And the future will say who has a viable legacy.