4 ms·

Yes, if they used C/C++ from the beginning, they wouldn't have run into GC issues, but they would run into another whole set of issues exclusive to C/C++ (free-

Yes, if they used C/C++ from the beginning, they wouldn't have run into GC issues, but they would run into another whole set of issues exclusive to C/C++ (free-after-use, buffer overflows, annoying threading bugs, etc.)

pron 6y ago
Just like they've run into issues with Elixir and are going to run into plenty of serious issues with Rust. The belief that your chosen language/runtime does not have some very serious issues is the mark of inexperience. The only thing you can do is know what they are and what you can live with. Choosing a hyped language makes the first part very hard; their history shows that they consistently fail on the second part, too. It looks like it's a very inexperienced team, which tech has plenty of, but turning their blunders into success stories is precisely the kind of amateurism dressed in bluster that this post is rightly ridiculing.
- tim333 6y ago
  There's an argument that it's good to avoid premature optimization - build your thing with something easy like rails or elixir and then if you run into performance issues rewrite those bits in something faster.
  - pron 6y ago
    It's not about premature optimization. They clearly didn't know enough about Go when they decided to use it -- partly because few people do, but they did know that -- and they clearly don't know enough about Rust, either. They're stumbling from one hype to another based on sales brochures and bragging about it. Again, Tech is full of such low-experience teams writing this kind of unimportant software and rewriting it every couple of years, and I guess it's good that someone volunteers as a lab rat for new languages (even if they do it over and over). But they're so inexperienced that they can't even see they're being snooty about their ignorance of their own requirements and tech.
saagarjha 6y ago
> free-after-use I wish ;)
- jason0597 6y ago
  Oops, meant to say "use-after-free"

pron 6y ago

Just like they've run into issues with Elixir and are going to run into plenty of serious issues with Rust. The belief that your chosen language/runtime does not have some very serious issues is the mark of inexperience. The only thing you can do is know what they are and what you can live with. Choosing a hyped language makes the first part very hard; their history shows that they consistently fail on the second part, too. It looks like it's a very inexperienced team, which tech has plenty of, but turning their blunders into success stories is precisely the kind of amateurism dressed in bluster that this post is rightly ridiculing.

tim333 6y ago
There's an argument that it's good to avoid premature optimization - build your thing with something easy like rails or elixir and then if you run into performance issues rewrite those bits in something faster.
- pron 6y ago
  It's not about premature optimization. They clearly didn't know enough about Go when they decided to use it -- partly because few people do, but they did know that -- and they clearly don't know enough about Rust, either. They're stumbling from one hype to another based on sales brochures and bragging about it. Again, Tech is full of such low-experience teams writing this kind of unimportant software and rewriting it every couple of years, and I guess it's good that someone volunteers as a lab rat for new languages (even if they do it over and over). But they're so inexperienced that they can't even see they're being snooty about their ignorance of their own requirements and tech.

saagarjha 6y ago

> free-after-use I wish ;)

jason0597 6y ago
Oops, meant to say "use-after-free"