4 ms·

Surprised this comes from google. I thought they were only interested in "practical" languages like "go." I wonder if anybody from google dislikes golang.

skybrian 7y ago
At a company with 100k employees working in a lot of different fields, it would be surprising if they all agreed on anything.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  How is this unreasonable? Companies have cultures that are heavily promoted. Yes 100k people has diversity but cultures promote singular opinions as well. I simply made a mistake that functional programming and type theory wasn't on googles radar, how is that an unreasonable assumption?
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Companies have cultures that are heavily promoted. Yes 100k people has diversity but cultures promote singular opinions as well. Google's culture doesn't seem to produce singular opinions even in the solution to very narrow problems (hence why they often out 2+ things out competing in the same or overlapping domains), much less broad questions like “what kinds of programming languages are useful”.
  - skybrian 7y ago
    It's unreasonable to assume that (a) Google hires smart academics to do cutting-edge research and (b) they forget the stuff they already learned and don't keep up with outside literature. You can safely assume that any of the stuff we commonly talk about on Hacker News is known to many Googlers.
    - crimsonalucard 7y ago
      I never assumed anything you said. I assumed that there culture promotes certain philosophies like the philosophy behind go which is very antithesis to something like Haskell. You will note that in the design of go, rob pike actually admits that many of the flaws in go were in response to things he didn’t know. Which makes your last statement categorically wrong. I would even argue most googlers aren’t too familiar with ml style languages or algebraic data types.
      - skybrian 7y ago
        You use "antithesis" like there's a contradiction, but this dissolves because we are talking about different people. The people behind Go promote Go, and the people behind Dart promote Dart, and the people working on Tensorflow promote Tensorflow. That's what they're working on. This doesn't require consensus about languages, or even philosophies behind languages. So, pointing to Go and saying it contradicts some other language's philosophy? There is no contradiction. They are different people. And even the same person could agree that each language has different strengths. (Also, "known to many Googlers" doesn't imply "known to all Googlers", so pointing out someone who didn't know something isn't a counterexample.)
        crimsonalucard 7y ago
        >The people behind Go promote Go, and the people behind Dart promote Dart, and the people working on Tensorflow promote Tensorflow. That's what they're working on. This doesn't require consensus about languages, or even philosophies behind languages. And I assumed that it did. This is not an unreasonable assumption given the fact that all of these languages / frameworks are not functional or use ADTs. >So, pointing to Go and saying it contradicts some other language's philosophy? There is no contradiction. They are different people. And even the same person could agree that each language has different strengths. Literally my main post was about how my assumption was incorrect. Either way, you can not pinpoint for sure that this culture does not exist unless you've worked for google and talked to those people. It probably does, and dex may just be an exception. >(Also, "known to many Googlers" doesn't imply "known to all Googlers", so pointing out someone who didn't know something isn't a counterexample.) Pointing to a leader who controls entire teams of people who is a language designer who doesn't know many things is supporting evidence. Leaders establish culture in a company, which can be described as a type of consensus within a diverse group of peoples. >You use "antithesis" like there's a contradiction, but this dissolves because we are talking about different people. I am talking about culture NOT people with differing opinions. Culture is a singular thing. Sort of like how google is a singular thing. An abstraction. I made an assumption about the culture and it surprised me when something contradicted that assumption. The problem in your universe is such assumptions should not ever be made. The assumption is reasonable because you haven't presented any information would prove such an assumption absurd to the point of no return. Your arguments imply that abstractions don't exist, everything is made up of components and parts; and assumptions about abstract groupings of said components are all "unreasonable" because abstract grouping are made of components and components have the potential to be different. You imply that components can never be the same and thus an assumption to that fact is incorrect. That is the essence of your argument and it is fundamentally wrong to the point of complete absurdity.
- ithkuil 7y ago
  And this is Google Ai Research. Perhaps what's practical in that field (e.g. automatic differentiation for machine learning) is not practical in other fields (infrastructure systems, mobile platforms, ...)
  - crimsonalucard 7y ago
    Or perhaps it is practical but google doesn't promote it culturally. Things like ReasonML or even React by facebook point to a different culture.
    - ithkuil 7y ago
      Sure, but it surely possible that subcultures of a large company like Google's converge to different targets given very different requirements in very different fields run by very different people.
nine_k 7y ago
Google has an internal configuration language similar in ideas to Haskell or ML. Quite nice, from my limited experience. It was marked deprecated in 2015 when I stopped working at Google. Friends say that it's still alive and kicking in 2019.
- delroth 7y ago
  The N one or the G one? They're both surprisingly similar to the Nix configuration language: https://nixos.org/nix/manual/#ch-expression-language https://nixos.org/nix/manual/#ch-expression-language
  - nine_k 7y ago
    The N one. I remember it syntactically much less noisy than Nix's, though. Ergonomics is hard.

skybrian 7y ago

At a company with 100k employees working in a lot of different fields, it would be surprising if they all agreed on anything.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
crimsonalucard 7y ago
How is this unreasonable? Companies have cultures that are heavily promoted. Yes 100k people has diversity but cultures promote singular opinions as well. I simply made a mistake that functional programming and type theory wasn't on googles radar, how is that an unreasonable assumption?
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Companies have cultures that are heavily promoted. Yes 100k people has diversity but cultures promote singular opinions as well. Google's culture doesn't seem to produce singular opinions even in the solution to very narrow problems (hence why they often out 2+ things out competing in the same or overlapping domains), much less broad questions like “what kinds of programming languages are useful”.
- skybrian 7y ago
  It's unreasonable to assume that (a) Google hires smart academics to do cutting-edge research and (b) they forget the stuff they already learned and don't keep up with outside literature. You can safely assume that any of the stuff we commonly talk about on Hacker News is known to many Googlers.
  - crimsonalucard 7y ago
    I never assumed anything you said. I assumed that there culture promotes certain philosophies like the philosophy behind go which is very antithesis to something like Haskell. You will note that in the design of go, rob pike actually admits that many of the flaws in go were in response to things he didn’t know. Which makes your last statement categorically wrong. I would even argue most googlers aren’t too familiar with ml style languages or algebraic data types.
    - skybrian 7y ago
      You use "antithesis" like there's a contradiction, but this dissolves because we are talking about different people. The people behind Go promote Go, and the people behind Dart promote Dart, and the people working on Tensorflow promote Tensorflow. That's what they're working on. This doesn't require consensus about languages, or even philosophies behind languages. So, pointing to Go and saying it contradicts some other language's philosophy? There is no contradiction. They are different people. And even the same person could agree that each language has different strengths. (Also, "known to many Googlers" doesn't imply "known to all Googlers", so pointing out someone who didn't know something isn't a counterexample.)
      - crimsonalucard 7y ago
        >The people behind Go promote Go, and the people behind Dart promote Dart, and the people working on Tensorflow promote Tensorflow. That's what they're working on. This doesn't require consensus about languages, or even philosophies behind languages. And I assumed that it did. This is not an unreasonable assumption given the fact that all of these languages / frameworks are not functional or use ADTs. >So, pointing to Go and saying it contradicts some other language's philosophy? There is no contradiction. They are different people. And even the same person could agree that each language has different strengths. Literally my main post was about how my assumption was incorrect. Either way, you can not pinpoint for sure that this culture does not exist unless you've worked for google and talked to those people. It probably does, and dex may just be an exception. >(Also, "known to many Googlers" doesn't imply "known to all Googlers", so pointing out someone who didn't know something isn't a counterexample.) Pointing to a leader who controls entire teams of people who is a language designer who doesn't know many things is supporting evidence. Leaders establish culture in a company, which can be described as a type of consensus within a diverse group of peoples. >You use "antithesis" like there's a contradiction, but this dissolves because we are talking about different people. I am talking about culture NOT people with differing opinions. Culture is a singular thing. Sort of like how google is a singular thing. An abstraction. I made an assumption about the culture and it surprised me when something contradicted that assumption. The problem in your universe is such assumptions should not ever be made. The assumption is reasonable because you haven't presented any information would prove such an assumption absurd to the point of no return. Your arguments imply that abstractions don't exist, everything is made up of components and parts; and assumptions about abstract groupings of said components are all "unreasonable" because abstract grouping are made of components and components have the potential to be different. You imply that components can never be the same and thus an assumption to that fact is incorrect. That is the essence of your argument and it is fundamentally wrong to the point of complete absurdity.
ithkuil 7y ago
And this is Google Ai Research. Perhaps what's practical in that field (e.g. automatic differentiation for machine learning) is not practical in other fields (infrastructure systems, mobile platforms, ...)
- crimsonalucard 7y ago
  Or perhaps it is practical but google doesn't promote it culturally. Things like ReasonML or even React by facebook point to a different culture.
  - ithkuil 7y ago
    Sure, but it surely possible that subcultures of a large company like Google's converge to different targets given very different requirements in very different fields run by very different people.

nine_k 7y ago

Google has an internal configuration language similar in ideas to Haskell or ML. Quite nice, from my limited experience. It was marked deprecated in 2015 when I stopped working at Google. Friends say that it's still alive and kicking in 2019.

delroth 7y ago
The N one or the G one? They're both surprisingly similar to the Nix configuration language: https://nixos.org/nix/manual/#ch-expression-language https://nixos.org/nix/manual/#ch-expression-language
- nine_k 7y ago
  The N one. I remember it syntactically much less noisy than Nix's, though. Ergonomics is hard.