4 ms·

This also applies to interviewing. Google for instance generally doesn't include anything PL theory related in their interviews, even though it would often be m

This also applies to interviewing. Google for instance generally doesn't include anything PL theory related in their interviews, even though it would often be more relevant to the work than random dynamic programming problems. As a result of this they produced languages and frameworks like Go, Dart, Angular and Tensorflow, which display ignorance if not outright contempt for modern programming language theory. This led to the latter two being mostly replaced by React and Pytorch, which are more influenced by language design best practices, to Dart being mostly ignored, and to Go being violently rejected by a significant subset of the programming community.

kaba0 5y ago
I really dislike Go, but its creator(s) is more than familiar with language theory, and it is absurd to say otherwise.
- codesections 5y ago
  I didn't read the GP as making a statement about the _creators_ of Go, but rather about its target users. And Go is explicitly targeted at "Programmers working at Google [who usually] are early in their careers and are most familiar with procedural languages, particularly from the C family."[0] If Google's interviews gateted on the sort of programming language questions the GP mentioned, then Go's target users would have been very different, and Go would likely be a different (better? Worse?) language. [0]:https://talks.golang.org/2012/splash.article https://talks.golang.org/2012/splash.article
UncleMeat 5y ago
> As a result of this they produced languages and frameworks like Go, Dart, Angular and Tensorflow, which display ignorance if not outright contempt for modern programming language theory. This is a non-sequitor. Google hires a lot of PL PhDs (I'm one of them). And for relevant teams there is a "Domain Expertise" portion of the interview. And many of the people working on the languages and frameworks you mention have such background. You don't like these systems. That's fine. But "Google would do it all differently if they just hired some PL PhDs" is just false.
jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago
I know someone that was on the Dart team. He's a PLT expert. In fact that's rather understating it. Don't mistake some pragmatic choices in language designs targeted for business use with ignorance.

kaba0 5y ago

I really dislike Go, but its creator(s) is more than familiar with language theory, and it is absurd to say otherwise.

codesections 5y ago
I didn't read the GP as making a statement about the _creators_ of Go, but rather about its target users. And Go is explicitly targeted at "Programmers working at Google [who usually] are early in their careers and are most familiar with procedural languages, particularly from the C family."[0] If Google's interviews gateted on the sort of programming language questions the GP mentioned, then Go's target users would have been very different, and Go would likely be a different (better? Worse?) language. [0]:https://talks.golang.org/2012/splash.article https://talks.golang.org/2012/splash.article

UncleMeat 5y ago

> As a result of this they produced languages and frameworks like Go, Dart, Angular and Tensorflow, which display ignorance if not outright contempt for modern programming language theory. This is a non-sequitor. Google hires a lot of PL PhDs (I'm one of them). And for relevant teams there is a "Domain Expertise" portion of the interview. And many of the people working on the languages and frameworks you mention have such background. You don't like these systems. That's fine. But "Google would do it all differently if they just hired some PL PhDs" is just false.

jasonwatkinspdx 5y ago

I know someone that was on the Dart team. He's a PLT expert. In fact that's rather understating it. Don't mistake some pragmatic choices in language designs targeted for business use with ignorance.