5 ms·

> Go is a pretty good programming language. I have long held that this is not attributable to Google’s stewardship, but rather to a small number of language des

> Go is a pretty good programming language. I have long held that this is not attributable to Google’s stewardship, but rather to a small number of language designers and a clear line of influences which is drawn entirely from outside of Google — mostly from Bell Labs. pkg.go.dev provides renewed support for my argument: it has all the hallmarks of Google crapware and none of the deliberate, good engineering work that went into Go’s design. Putting aside the criticisms, I think a new word is needed to describe anti-Google sentiment of this flavor. The idea that Google is incapable of doing anything positive, so anything “good” coming out of Google must be attributable to influences outside of Google. I’d like to think about it as a “no true Googler” argument. The Go team are not true Googlers, because they produce something useful. When they built that module proxy however, they were clearly so doing as Googlers. (As someone who works at Google, I can humorously imagine that when I’m acting as a true Googler, my only goal is to foist new crapware onto the world, get promoted, and kill it off.) Or maybe we recognize that companies are collections of individuals, and all individuals bring their own history and influences. The culture shapes them and they shape it back. Playing semantic games to divide and attribute isn’t useful.

ddevault 6y ago
This is not a "no true Googler" argument, but a factual statement supported by the history of Go. The design of Go is heavily inspired by Plan 9, Inferno, and Limbo, none of which came from within Google. In fact - name any of the flagship features of Go and I'll draw a line for you from that feature into the historical influences. Goroutines, channels, garbage collection, GOPATH... none of these were invented by Go.
- amscanne 6y ago
  Right, but Go itself, which builds on those ideas was built within Google. I have no objection to attributing ideas, but you seem to want to attribute some general “quality of engineering” attributes to “not Google”. The people doing things you like are just as much Googlers as all the people doing things you don’t like, and they all have an influence on the company and vice versa. In many cases, it’s even the same people. So the distinctions you are trying to draw are silly. Just let the criticisms stand on their own.
  - ddevault 6y ago
    The distinction is meaningful. The language designers of Go are a small group of people with a history of innovation outside of Google who had established the context in which Go was made prior to joining Google. Just because Google signed the check, they should get credit? Go would have happened no matter who hired the team. Google's engineering ethos has a negative effect on the products of developer labor, and it shows in their stewardship of Golang as well as all of their other products. I know you work at Google and have been busy in this thread trying to cognitive dissonance your way around this problem, but the fact is that Google sucks at engineering and I have argued to support this point.
    - akerl_ 6y ago
      Yes; Google hiring people with a history of innovation and giving them the support (financial and otherwise) to undertake a project does make the project part of Google’s engineering portfolio. I’m not sure how this could be in dispute. It’s not like Golang was something that Google backed on Kickstarter: they gave resources and pay to the people whom they intentionally hired because they wanted engineers with their skillset. If employees hired as engineers, who work on engineering projects, don’t count as part of your company’s “engineering ethos” just because they were already engineers before you hired them, I’m not sure we have a shared agreement on what “engineering ethos” means. Are only fresh college graduates permitted to count as part of your “ethos”? How many years of experience can an engineer attain before their accomplishments at work are no longer part of their employer’s ethos?
      - ddevault 6y ago
        I must be really awful at explaining my point or there's an awful lot of willful ignorance in this thread. Either way, something awful is going on. Read carefully: the engineering culture of Google - it's practices, policies, principles, insiprations, and so on - did not make Go. The prior experiences of the Go authors, and a handful of specific and obvious influences, both of which are objectively not of Google, made Go. Google's engineering ethos does not get credit for Go, though maybe an argument can be made that their wallet gets credit. Personally, I don't agree with that, but it's beside the point.
- cycloptic 6y ago
  Can you please tone down the inflammatory rhetoric, in general? I used to like reading your blog but it's getting really tiring to see every technical discussion you make sidetracked by a rant against someone or something.
ocdtrekkie 6y ago
Maybe when you feel the need to defend your employer from such criticisms often enough to define a new term for it, you should wonder about your employer more, and whether or not the criticism comes from a place of truth.
pldr1234 6y ago
Your attempt to disarm the argument against Google's volatile engineering essentially boils down to: "people are all different, and people make up Google, so you can't say Google is one way or another". That would apply equally to quite literally any collective/group/company/society. How does such poor reasoning end up voted so highly on HN?

ddevault 6y ago

This is not a "no true Googler" argument, but a factual statement supported by the history of Go. The design of Go is heavily inspired by Plan 9, Inferno, and Limbo, none of which came from within Google. In fact - name any of the flagship features of Go and I'll draw a line for you from that feature into the historical influences. Goroutines, channels, garbage collection, GOPATH... none of these were invented by Go.

amscanne 6y ago
Right, but Go itself, which builds on those ideas was built within Google. I have no objection to attributing ideas, but you seem to want to attribute some general “quality of engineering” attributes to “not Google”. The people doing things you like are just as much Googlers as all the people doing things you don’t like, and they all have an influence on the company and vice versa. In many cases, it’s even the same people. So the distinctions you are trying to draw are silly. Just let the criticisms stand on their own.
- ddevault 6y ago
  The distinction is meaningful. The language designers of Go are a small group of people with a history of innovation outside of Google who had established the context in which Go was made prior to joining Google. Just because Google signed the check, they should get credit? Go would have happened no matter who hired the team. Google's engineering ethos has a negative effect on the products of developer labor, and it shows in their stewardship of Golang as well as all of their other products. I know you work at Google and have been busy in this thread trying to cognitive dissonance your way around this problem, but the fact is that Google sucks at engineering and I have argued to support this point.
  - akerl_ 6y ago
    Yes; Google hiring people with a history of innovation and giving them the support (financial and otherwise) to undertake a project does make the project part of Google’s engineering portfolio. I’m not sure how this could be in dispute. It’s not like Golang was something that Google backed on Kickstarter: they gave resources and pay to the people whom they intentionally hired because they wanted engineers with their skillset. If employees hired as engineers, who work on engineering projects, don’t count as part of your company’s “engineering ethos” just because they were already engineers before you hired them, I’m not sure we have a shared agreement on what “engineering ethos” means. Are only fresh college graduates permitted to count as part of your “ethos”? How many years of experience can an engineer attain before their accomplishments at work are no longer part of their employer’s ethos?
    - ddevault 6y ago
      I must be really awful at explaining my point or there's an awful lot of willful ignorance in this thread. Either way, something awful is going on. Read carefully: the engineering culture of Google - it's practices, policies, principles, insiprations, and so on - did not make Go. The prior experiences of the Go authors, and a handful of specific and obvious influences, both of which are objectively not of Google, made Go. Google's engineering ethos does not get credit for Go, though maybe an argument can be made that their wallet gets credit. Personally, I don't agree with that, but it's beside the point.
cycloptic 6y ago
Can you please tone down the inflammatory rhetoric, in general? I used to like reading your blog but it's getting really tiring to see every technical discussion you make sidetracked by a rant against someone or something.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

Maybe when you feel the need to defend your employer from such criticisms often enough to define a new term for it, you should wonder about your employer more, and whether or not the criticism comes from a place of truth.

pldr1234 6y ago

Your attempt to disarm the argument against Google's volatile engineering essentially boils down to: "people are all different, and people make up Google, so you can't say Google is one way or another". That would apply equally to quite literally any collective/group/company/society. How does such poor reasoning end up voted so highly on HN?