4 ms·

I dont know the experience of others with this, but in reality is not that easy to have people with enough brain power or compromise for languages like C++ and

I dont know the experience of others with this, but in reality is not that easy to have people with enough brain power or compromise for languages like C++ and Rust. Sure theres "enough for the world", if you sum everybody, but i bet that even a company of the size of Dropbox would have a hard time hiring everyone they need if the complexity of the language is the same as Rust or C++. For instance, if you read the Go manifesto to why the language was created, you can read between the lines that C++ getting in the way where enginners were fighting hard to deal with language complexity. So the same way as Java before them, they created a language for the "average programmer". And you can see how the language is very pragmatic and how they fight to no put more complexity on the language. By the way, i know its a personal opinion, but i think Rust will not be a great fit for the cloud backend exactlya because of this kind of thing. It will be hard to create codebase as complex as the ones in Java, because there will be much less man-hours available. Maybe if generations are getting smarter, IDK, but needing to rely on a big head-count of C++ or Rust enginners for any company, i bet they will have a hard time to fill all the positions they need. Theres much more C++ enginners than Rust right now, and companies have a hard time hiring them (and i bet that for Rust it will be no different giving its complexity).

speedplane 7y ago
> if you read the Go manifesto to why the language was created, you can read between the lines that C++ getting in the way where enginners were fighting hard to deal with language complexity. My understanding was that the push from C++ to Go was largely motivated by long C++ compile/linking times. Go is designed to compile large code-bases much faster than C++. I've experienced this myself, it's pretty frustrating to wait 2-5 minutes for a C++ app to compile / link just so you can debug it for 30 seconds and start all over again.
- oscargrouch 7y ago
  But this is a by-product of their initial motivation. I mean, how could they know their link times would be that much better? I know that Pike et al. worked on compilers for Inferno, and the Ken´s C compiler used some tricks to know beforehand they could make it compile and link very fast, but they couldnt know if the language they were designing would be as fast (to compile) as C or Limbo. They could say confidently: "we could do better", but they would need more pragmatic motives, even to convince Google to support that effort. And i bet Google was struggling with C++ enginnering, specially within the newcomers on the team. I think, both things are true, but developer ergonomics play a very important factor into the why of a language and where it fits in the scheme of things.
- hermitdev 7y ago
  > I've experienced this myself, it's pretty frustrating to wait 2-5 minutes for a C++ app to compile / link just so you can debug it for 30 seconds and start all over again. That's quaint. When I first started working in C++ professionally, we were at +16 hours for a clean build and link of just one of our systems (circa 2004). Over the years, reduced the amount of code (without sacrificing functionality), shared common code (object model) between client and server (went from about 2M LOC to about 250k LOC), reduced the number of external dependencies, introduced precompiled headers on both windows and Linux, and a clean build was down to about 30 minutes. An incremental build and link could be less than 30 seconds, depending on the scope of the change. But, yeah, C++ leaves a lot to be desired in terms of edit, build, test, repeat cycles.

speedplane 7y ago

> if you read the Go manifesto to why the language was created, you can read between the lines that C++ getting in the way where enginners were fighting hard to deal with language complexity. My understanding was that the push from C++ to Go was largely motivated by long C++ compile/linking times. Go is designed to compile large code-bases much faster than C++. I've experienced this myself, it's pretty frustrating to wait 2-5 minutes for a C++ app to compile / link just so you can debug it for 30 seconds and start all over again.

oscargrouch 7y ago
But this is a by-product of their initial motivation. I mean, how could they know their link times would be that much better? I know that Pike et al. worked on compilers for Inferno, and the Ken´s C compiler used some tricks to know beforehand they could make it compile and link very fast, but they couldnt know if the language they were designing would be as fast (to compile) as C or Limbo. They could say confidently: "we could do better", but they would need more pragmatic motives, even to convince Google to support that effort. And i bet Google was struggling with C++ enginnering, specially within the newcomers on the team. I think, both things are true, but developer ergonomics play a very important factor into the why of a language and where it fits in the scheme of things.
hermitdev 7y ago
> I've experienced this myself, it's pretty frustrating to wait 2-5 minutes for a C++ app to compile / link just so you can debug it for 30 seconds and start all over again. That's quaint. When I first started working in C++ professionally, we were at +16 hours for a clean build and link of just one of our systems (circa 2004). Over the years, reduced the amount of code (without sacrificing functionality), shared common code (object model) between client and server (went from about 2M LOC to about 250k LOC), reduced the number of external dependencies, introduced precompiled headers on both windows and Linux, and a clean build was down to about 30 minutes. An incremental build and link could be less than 30 seconds, depending on the scope of the change. But, yeah, C++ leaves a lot to be desired in terms of edit, build, test, repeat cycles.