5 ms·

Go was designed to not cause widespread damage in the hands of a mediocre programmer. It prevents people from being too clever at the expense of more boilerplat

by gaze 5y ago

Go was designed to not cause widespread damage in the hands of a mediocre programmer. It prevents people from being too clever at the expense of more boilerplate and general busywork. This is the exact tradeoff that google wanted to make.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
sneak 5y ago
I've heard this repeated several times. Is there a source for this claim from any of the people who designed the language?
- pwdisswordfish8 5y ago
  > The key point here is our programmers are Googlers, they’re not researchers. They’re typically, fairly young, fresh out of school, probably learned Java, maybe learned C or C++, probably learned Python. They’re not capable of understanding a brilliant language but we want to use them to build good software. So, the language that we give them has to be easy for them to understand and easy to adopt. — Rob Pike <http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Lang-NEXT/Lang-NEXT-2014/From-Parallel-to-Concurrent http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Lang-NEXT/Lang-NEXT-2014/Fro...>
  - jlouis 5y ago
    See also https://talks.golang.org/2012/splash.article https://talks.golang.org/2012/splash.article
- bordercases 5y ago
  From [1] via [2]: > The key point here is our programmers are Googlers, they’re not researchers. They’re typically, fairly young, fresh out of school, probably learned Java, maybe learned C or C++, probably learned Python. They’re not capable of understanding a brilliant language but we want to use them to build good software. So, the language that we give them has to be easy for them to understand and easy to adopt. – Rob Pike [1] https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Lang-NEXT/Lang-NEXT-2014/From-Parallel-to-Concurrent https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Lang-NEXT/Lang-NEXT-2014/Fr... [2] http://nomad.uk.net/articles/why-gos-design-is-a-disservice-to-intelligent-programmers.html http://nomad.uk.net/articles/why-gos-design-is-a-disservice-...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tut-urut-utut 5y ago
If that was the goal then why not just use Java? It fits this goal description even better and offer superior tooling, infrastructure and mindshare.
- jonahx 5y ago
  One important reason: Because Java encourages inhertance-based designs, which are especially dangerous if your goal is to get inexperienced programmers to write simple, straightforward code. Go does not have inheritance.
  - Koshkin 5y ago
    But inheritance is thought to be a key to software reuse, and reusing the existing software is the safest path for inexperienced programmers to become productive.
    - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
      Inheritance is thought by some to be a key to software reuse. By others it is considered a huge mistake. Myself, I don't consider inheritance to be problematic when used wisely. But one shouldn't expect inexperienced programmers to act wisely. My main point, though: Don't act like the inheritance question has a consensus answer. It doesn't.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - tptacek 5y ago
      If this was true, it would be an argument that applies just as powerfully to Rust. Ironically: it's the argument you'd expect Java developers to deploy.
    - orwin 5y ago
      Well... Inheritance have some use, sure. But productive code is code that is easily refactrorable, uncomplicated and easy to read. Inheriting, or rather subclassing too much will kill you code base (i'm currenctly working in a bank, writing mostly java and groovy, i think everybody agree except managment). A good alternative is composition, but you have to have a clear view of what you want. I alway try to make one function/method per action (when i have more then three indent level in a function, i'm prototyping), and that helps more than inheritance for code reuse (and i avoid comments inside functions). And i use a lot of interfaces and "default methods" to emulate "traits" which is imo superior to inheritance, in a lot of way. I still dislike java and groovy, when you spend hours depiling constructs to understand how to make a minor change on data collection, this is not a good language.
jjtheblunt 5y ago
I think of Go as a lovechild of C and Scheme, mainly; I wonder if there's a citation for the claim made about design for preventing damaging programmers.
- wirrbel 5y ago
  You could also assume it as a rip-off of Modula/Oberon.
  - Koshkin 5y ago
    As is Acme, a text editor. Pike is like that.
    - wirrbel 5y ago
      Interesting, that was new to me. Wirth's work is not the worst source for inspiration of course. I still find the adoption of Go interesting though, considering how limiting Pascal/Modula/Oberon felt to me when leaving them behind.
      - jjtheblunt 5y ago
        It might be because Go is a more defined C variant () but with a very full standard library. : with real capturing closures and garbage collection, as in Scheme
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
zozbot234 5y ago
Yes, it's not "good" in general terms but it's a lot better than Python or Ruby, and that's still a win.

by gaze 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

sneak 5y ago

I've heard this repeated several times. Is there a source for this claim from any of the people who designed the language?

pwdisswordfish8 5y ago
> The key point here is our programmers are Googlers, they’re not researchers. They’re typically, fairly young, fresh out of school, probably learned Java, maybe learned C or C++, probably learned Python. They’re not capable of understanding a brilliant language but we want to use them to build good software. So, the language that we give them has to be easy for them to understand and easy to adopt. — Rob Pike <http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Lang-NEXT/Lang-NEXT-2014/From-Parallel-to-Concurrent http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Lang-NEXT/Lang-NEXT-2014/Fro...>
- jlouis 5y ago
  See also https://talks.golang.org/2012/splash.article https://talks.golang.org/2012/splash.article
bordercases 5y ago
From [1] via [2]: > The key point here is our programmers are Googlers, they’re not researchers. They’re typically, fairly young, fresh out of school, probably learned Java, maybe learned C or C++, probably learned Python. They’re not capable of understanding a brilliant language but we want to use them to build good software. So, the language that we give them has to be easy for them to understand and easy to adopt. – Rob Pike [1] https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Lang-NEXT/Lang-NEXT-2014/From-Parallel-to-Concurrent https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Lang-NEXT/Lang-NEXT-2014/Fr... [2] http://nomad.uk.net/articles/why-gos-design-is-a-disservice-to-intelligent-programmers.html http://nomad.uk.net/articles/why-gos-design-is-a-disservice-...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tut-urut-utut 5y ago

If that was the goal then why not just use Java? It fits this goal description even better and offer superior tooling, infrastructure and mindshare.

jonahx 5y ago
One important reason: Because Java encourages inhertance-based designs, which are especially dangerous if your goal is to get inexperienced programmers to write simple, straightforward code. Go does not have inheritance.
- Koshkin 5y ago
  But inheritance is thought to be a key to software reuse, and reusing the existing software is the safest path for inexperienced programmers to become productive.
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    Inheritance is thought by some to be a key to software reuse. By others it is considered a huge mistake. Myself, I don't consider inheritance to be problematic when used wisely. But one shouldn't expect inexperienced programmers to act wisely. My main point, though: Don't act like the inheritance question has a consensus answer. It doesn't.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - tptacek 5y ago
    If this was true, it would be an argument that applies just as powerfully to Rust. Ironically: it's the argument you'd expect Java developers to deploy.
  - orwin 5y ago
    Well... Inheritance have some use, sure. But productive code is code that is easily refactrorable, uncomplicated and easy to read. Inheriting, or rather subclassing too much will kill you code base (i'm currenctly working in a bank, writing mostly java and groovy, i think everybody agree except managment). A good alternative is composition, but you have to have a clear view of what you want. I alway try to make one function/method per action (when i have more then three indent level in a function, i'm prototyping), and that helps more than inheritance for code reuse (and i avoid comments inside functions). And i use a lot of interfaces and "default methods" to emulate "traits" which is imo superior to inheritance, in a lot of way. I still dislike java and groovy, when you spend hours depiling constructs to understand how to make a minor change on data collection, this is not a good language.

jjtheblunt 5y ago

I think of Go as a lovechild of C and Scheme, mainly; I wonder if there's a citation for the claim made about design for preventing damaging programmers.

wirrbel 5y ago
You could also assume it as a rip-off of Modula/Oberon.
- Koshkin 5y ago
  As is Acme, a text editor. Pike is like that.
  - wirrbel 5y ago
    Interesting, that was new to me. Wirth's work is not the worst source for inspiration of course. I still find the adoption of Go interesting though, considering how limiting Pascal/Modula/Oberon felt to me when leaving them behind.
    - jjtheblunt 5y ago
      It might be because Go is a more defined C variant () but with a very full standard library. : with real capturing closures and garbage collection, as in Scheme

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

zozbot234 5y ago

Yes, it's not "good" in general terms but it's a lot better than Python or Ruby, and that's still a win.