2 ms·
Sorry those just aren't legitimate analogies. As I mention before every feature has a cost, Go is highly concerned with how those costs impact the community. In
by yahyaheee 7y ago
Sorry those just aren't legitimate analogies. As I mention before every feature has a cost, Go is highly concerned with how those costs impact the community. In doing so they have created a language thats highly maintainable and efficient. Even at small companies there is turnover and you being 'really smart' with some abstraction has an impact, I've seen this plenty first hand.
- jkachmar 7y agoCounterpoint, regarding community: the Rust programming language has a much more vocal, cohesive, and engaged community than Go does in my experience, even though it has a fraction of the corporate backing. Counterpoint, regarding “reducing the cost of features”: Go is spreading a simplified understanding of what garbage collection performance means to a generation of programmers by providing almost no configuration over their GC settings. I’ve had people say that Go’s GC is obviously the best, without any point of reference with which to compare it. What Go has done here is pick a reasonable set of trade-offs to make in their garbage collector, hard-code most of these settings into the runtime system, and package that into the philosophy of “configuration is bad”.
- yahyaheee 7y agoRust has a pretty great community, and I don't think you need corporate backing for a community. I'm just stressing it's one of the most (if not the most) important aspects of a language. I will say Rust it isn't nearly as easy to enter as Go, that should be somewhat expected by their desired feature set. Likewise, they aren't as concerned with the cost of features as Go is. I would somewhat agree with the GC stuff, I think having a couple more levers there with sensible defaults is probably ideal.