4 ms·

Go is a relatively simple language that doesn't look like it's getting much bigger and I'm pretty sure it has a fairly broad user base.

Igelau 6y ago
Go has the opposite problem. It's not getting big enough. Last I checked, they couldn't be bothered to add integer exponentiation.
- recursive 6y ago
  C# also doesn't have integer exponentiation.
  - Garvey 6y ago
    It has since .Net 4.0, but does require using BigInteger https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.numerics.biginteger.pow https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.numerics....
    - recursive 6y ago
      That's a stretch. There's no language support for it in terms of an operator, and it's in a package that's not referenced by default.
emodendroket 6y ago
Dwarfed by that of C#, but it’s also going for something rather different that was never attainable by C# in the first place. Also, I’m kind of on the fence about Go. I was charmed by how easy it is to read and their error handling strategy admittedly has benefits. But it is awfully tedious to write.
- dnautics 6y ago
  No argument.. I strongly dislike go, myself.
- politician 6y ago
  I wrote C# for a long time, incl. low-level systems work at the C#/C++ boundary, heavy reflection and simulation systems, and numerical processing. I prefer Go immeasurably. All of the same scope is achievable, but I'm not constantly assaulted by new syntax, unwieldy OO hierarchy towers of Babel, or broken data frameworks. foo, err := DoIt() if err != nil { return err } is a small price to pay for sane control flow in the presence of exceptions. I can debug code in Vim without needing Reflector and Visual Studio to make sense of what I'm looking at.
  - emodendroket 6y ago
    The thing is, yeah, any one of those verbose things wouldn't be a big deal. But there are actually quite a few and it adds up over time.
  - jiggawatts 6y ago
    > I can debug code in Vim without needing Reflector and Visual Studio to make sense of what I'm looking at. Every time I hear someone say something like this, I have a mental image of people manhandling 200kg crates while the forklift sits idle because they can't be bothered learning how to drive it. Reminds me of that multi-million dollar German-made road resurfacing machine that sat unused in some US city because the road crew thought it was too complicated to learn. Sure... they'd have to read the manual and learn to operate it, but that would only save millions of dollars in labour!
    - emodendroket 6y ago
      I agree with your sentiment, but if we want to be charitable to the OP, debugger or not, code that's easier to reason about is easier to debug. Whether that's true of the particular languages in question is another matter of course.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
dustinmoris 6y ago
Ironically I'm mostly abandoning C# and using Go for the majority of my new development now. I really like the simplicity and stability of Go. The compiler speed, the tooling, gofmt, and lots of other goodies just make it a very refreshing change. I'm sure in 5 years time Go will also feel less refreshing, but I have a feeling that my Go code today will not look vastly different to my Go code in 5 years time and that is very attractive. Also Go really allows one to hire anyone. You can literally just hire a smart person and let them learn Go on their first day on the job which will make them good enough to start picking up the first tasks and be productive. There are not many languages which can do that.
- emodendroket 6y ago
  That's the pitch but I'm also kind of tired of reading Java with Go syntax.
- merb 6y ago
  > You can literally just hire a smart person and let them learn Go on their first day on the job which will make them good enough to start picking up the first tasks and be productive. you can be productive on the first tasks in any language. that is a stupid pitch. bad code can be written in any language, especially in golang. I've seen as many bad code in golang than in other languages. and fixing bad code in golang is way worse than in some other languages.
  - emodendroket 6y ago
    The thing about it, I think, it that it is very _simple_, in terms of the primitives it gives you, but it wants you to do things differently than you're probably used to.

Igelau 6y ago

Go has the opposite problem. It's not getting big enough. Last I checked, they couldn't be bothered to add integer exponentiation.

recursive 6y ago
C# also doesn't have integer exponentiation.
- Garvey 6y ago
  It has since .Net 4.0, but does require using BigInteger https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.numerics.biginteger.pow https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.numerics....
  - recursive 6y ago
    That's a stretch. There's no language support for it in terms of an operator, and it's in a package that's not referenced by default.

emodendroket 6y ago

Dwarfed by that of C#, but it’s also going for something rather different that was never attainable by C# in the first place. Also, I’m kind of on the fence about Go. I was charmed by how easy it is to read and their error handling strategy admittedly has benefits. But it is awfully tedious to write.

dnautics 6y ago
No argument.. I strongly dislike go, myself.
politician 6y ago
I wrote C# for a long time, incl. low-level systems work at the C#/C++ boundary, heavy reflection and simulation systems, and numerical processing. I prefer Go immeasurably. All of the same scope is achievable, but I'm not constantly assaulted by new syntax, unwieldy OO hierarchy towers of Babel, or broken data frameworks. foo, err := DoIt() if err != nil { return err } is a small price to pay for sane control flow in the presence of exceptions. I can debug code in Vim without needing Reflector and Visual Studio to make sense of what I'm looking at.
- emodendroket 6y ago
  The thing is, yeah, any one of those verbose things wouldn't be a big deal. But there are actually quite a few and it adds up over time.
- jiggawatts 6y ago
  > I can debug code in Vim without needing Reflector and Visual Studio to make sense of what I'm looking at. Every time I hear someone say something like this, I have a mental image of people manhandling 200kg crates while the forklift sits idle because they can't be bothered learning how to drive it. Reminds me of that multi-million dollar German-made road resurfacing machine that sat unused in some US city because the road crew thought it was too complicated to learn. Sure... they'd have to read the manual and learn to operate it, but that would only save millions of dollars in labour!
  - emodendroket 6y ago
    I agree with your sentiment, but if we want to be charitable to the OP, debugger or not, code that's easier to reason about is easier to debug. Whether that's true of the particular languages in question is another matter of course.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

dustinmoris 6y ago

Ironically I'm mostly abandoning C# and using Go for the majority of my new development now. I really like the simplicity and stability of Go. The compiler speed, the tooling, gofmt, and lots of other goodies just make it a very refreshing change. I'm sure in 5 years time Go will also feel less refreshing, but I have a feeling that my Go code today will not look vastly different to my Go code in 5 years time and that is very attractive. Also Go really allows one to hire anyone. You can literally just hire a smart person and let them learn Go on their first day on the job which will make them good enough to start picking up the first tasks and be productive. There are not many languages which can do that.

emodendroket 6y ago
That's the pitch but I'm also kind of tired of reading Java with Go syntax.
merb 6y ago
> You can literally just hire a smart person and let them learn Go on their first day on the job which will make them good enough to start picking up the first tasks and be productive. you can be productive on the first tasks in any language. that is a stupid pitch. bad code can be written in any language, especially in golang. I've seen as many bad code in golang than in other languages. and fixing bad code in golang is way worse than in some other languages.
- emodendroket 6y ago
  The thing about it, I think, it that it is very _simple_, in terms of the primitives it gives you, but it wants you to do things differently than you're probably used to.