4 ms·
The language and tooling is designed for development at scale. Lots of pragmatic trade offs were made. Its not flashy at all, and could even be accused of being
by Skunkleton 7y ago
The language and tooling is designed for development at scale. Lots of pragmatic trade offs were made. Its not flashy at all, and could even be accused of being a bit boring. It is also appropriate for a similar domain.
- takeda 7y agoyep, there Go was labeled as a replacement for C or Python, and while it in no way replaces C and and as for Python it generally only does when the Python wasn't the right choice from the start. In reality Go can fully take over Java's problem space.
- qqssccfftt 7y ago> In reality Go can fully take over Java's problem space. Or, when Project Loom releases, Java will be able to fully take over Go's problem space.
- takeda 7y agoSorry, my previous post sounded like I was picking a favorite, what I meant is that Go and Java pretty much has identical problem space.
- pjmlp 7y agoNot really, unless it provides generics, JEE and Spring like frameworks, supports all embedded CPUs, Oracle/SQL Server/DB2, mainframes, has an OS of its own, a GUI half as good as Swing,....
- krakatau1 7y agothere is no way that's happening, outside of silicon valley practically no one is using Go, there are millions Java developers who are quite content with language...
- kelnos 7y agoNot without generics it can't. I know a lot of people seem to think that generics aren't necessary in Go, but I vehemently disagree with them.