10 ms·

Go and Hare are rust-adjacent with just a touch of crayon involved. I highly recommend both especially Go since you mention rust with GC

by 0des 4y ago

adeon 4y ago
I like Go a lot. At my previous employer a lot of the systems we wrote for log processing were written in Golang. And I thought it was really nice; I can compile my code really quickly and code in general will run pretty fast. I've only used in the space of big data file processing though. My only real issue with Go is that I feel the language part itself is simplistic and doesn't have the kind of type/trait/typeclass/similarthing like Rust or Haskell has. In Haskell I especially like doing DSLs using monads, e.g. I did a integer-problem-to-SAT-problem DSL and another DSL for NetHack playing AI. In Go making these DSLs is more pain. Although I think that would be true for Rust as well, just not as much.
mftb 4y ago
Just wacky I had to scroll this far to see Go mentioned. In certain contexts Rust is very impressive, in others Go is a much better choice. I'm really starting to hope that we'll see some of the important advancements in Rust packaged up in a better language.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Go is very deliberately designed for when you depend on a team with sharply limited skills.
  - mftb 4y ago
    These one-liners aren't super-constructive, my own comment was hardly in-depth, so whatever... On any team or in a community your most likely to have a range of skill levels across members. A language can be many things, a powerful tool or a strong barrier. When I first heard about Rust I thought we were on the verge of getting some real advancements across a much larger community of developers and scope of projects. Instead I think we're headed further down a path of at least 3 major groups of PL (scripting, memory-managed, precise semantics). Who knows, maybe it's for the best. If so we better get busy improving the inter-op.
rfiat 4y ago
It's interesting that you find Go to be Rust-adjacent. Setting aside the USPs of each language (goroutines and borrow checker respectively) and just speaking about the general experience of writing code, I find Go painful for all the reasons that I find Rust pleasant. The best summary I can give of Rust is that it was designed by people who learned from the mistakes of the programming languages that came before it. The best summary I can give of Go is to quote Rob Pike's response [0] to a request for syntax highlighting in the Go playground: > Syntax highlighting is juvenile. When I was a child, I was taught arithmetic using colored rods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuisenaire_rods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuisenaire_rods). I grew up and today I use monochromatic numerals. [0] https://groups.google.com/g/golang-nuts/c/hJHCAaiL0so/m/kG3BHV6QFfIJ https://groups.google.com/g/golang-nuts/c/hJHCAaiL0so/m/kG3B...
- 0des 4y ago
  It's like my favorite John Quincy Adams quote, "It is what it is, and it ain't what it ain't" Different strokes for different folks you know? At the end of the day if folks code at all, and it makes them happy, that's a good thing.
- adastra22 4y ago
  If your primary criticism of golang is that its creator doesn't like syntax highlighting, then it must be doing pretty good.
  - dgunay 4y ago
    It is mostly an example of the mindset that I think GP is trying to illustrate. Go has nil where Rust has Option. Go has weird not-quite-tuple returns & if err != nil where Rust has Result. Go has no real enum concept, where rust has its powerful enums and matching constructs. Go has generics, but only after a decade of pressure from users (and even then, they are much much less useful than Rust's type system). I like Go and I feel very productive in it, but its commitment to simplicity is dogmatic in many ways and it very much is missing milestone advancements in PLs from the past several decades. It could easily have been made in the 90s.
c-cube 4y ago
Hare is not rust adjacent, sorry. It can't even represent the (small) stdlib of rust since it lacks generics, RAII... Not to mention the memory safety. It belongs in a different class of languages.
- ncmncm 4y ago
  "Toys"
- 0des 4y ago
  You are not correct but I'll accept your opinion as your understanding of it.
kaba0 4y ago
Go's lack of expressivity and weak as hell type system is hardly close to Rust, like I can barely see a similarity other than both being a PL. Hell, probably Java is closer to Rust than Go, at least it is also nominally typed.

Go and Hare are rust-adjacent with just a touch of crayon involved. I highly recommend both especially Go since you mention rust with GC

by 0des 4y ago

Go and Hare are rust-adjacent with just a touch of crayon involved. I highly recommend both especially Go since you mention rust with GC

adeon 4y ago

I like Go a lot. At my previous employer a lot of the systems we wrote for log processing were written in Golang. And I thought it was really nice; I can compile my code really quickly and code in general will run pretty fast. I've only used in the space of big data file processing though. My only real issue with Go is that I feel the language part itself is simplistic and doesn't have the kind of type/trait/typeclass/similarthing like Rust or Haskell has. In Haskell I especially like doing DSLs using monads, e.g. I did a integer-problem-to-SAT-problem DSL and another DSL for NetHack playing AI. In Go making these DSLs is more pain. Although I think that would be true for Rust as well, just not as much.

mftb 4y ago

Just wacky I had to scroll this far to see Go mentioned. In certain contexts Rust is very impressive, in others Go is a much better choice. I'm really starting to hope that we'll see some of the important advancements in Rust packaged up in a better language.

ncmncm 4y ago
Go is very deliberately designed for when you depend on a team with sharply limited skills.
- mftb 4y ago
  These one-liners aren't super-constructive, my own comment was hardly in-depth, so whatever... On any team or in a community your most likely to have a range of skill levels across members. A language can be many things, a powerful tool or a strong barrier. When I first heard about Rust I thought we were on the verge of getting some real advancements across a much larger community of developers and scope of projects. Instead I think we're headed further down a path of at least 3 major groups of PL (scripting, memory-managed, precise semantics). Who knows, maybe it's for the best. If so we better get busy improving the inter-op.

rfiat 4y ago

It's interesting that you find Go to be Rust-adjacent. Setting aside the USPs of each language (goroutines and borrow checker respectively) and just speaking about the general experience of writing code, I find Go painful for all the reasons that I find Rust pleasant. The best summary I can give of Rust is that it was designed by people who learned from the mistakes of the programming languages that came before it. The best summary I can give of Go is to quote Rob Pike's response [0] to a request for syntax highlighting in the Go playground: > Syntax highlighting is juvenile. When I was a child, I was taught arithmetic using colored rods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuisenaire_rods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuisenaire_rods). I grew up and today I use monochromatic numerals. [0] https://groups.google.com/g/golang-nuts/c/hJHCAaiL0so/m/kG3BHV6QFfIJ https://groups.google.com/g/golang-nuts/c/hJHCAaiL0so/m/kG3B...

0des 4y ago
It's like my favorite John Quincy Adams quote, "It is what it is, and it ain't what it ain't" Different strokes for different folks you know? At the end of the day if folks code at all, and it makes them happy, that's a good thing.
adastra22 4y ago
If your primary criticism of golang is that its creator doesn't like syntax highlighting, then it must be doing pretty good.
- dgunay 4y ago
  It is mostly an example of the mindset that I think GP is trying to illustrate. Go has nil where Rust has Option. Go has weird not-quite-tuple returns & if err != nil where Rust has Result. Go has no real enum concept, where rust has its powerful enums and matching constructs. Go has generics, but only after a decade of pressure from users (and even then, they are much much less useful than Rust's type system). I like Go and I feel very productive in it, but its commitment to simplicity is dogmatic in many ways and it very much is missing milestone advancements in PLs from the past several decades. It could easily have been made in the 90s.

c-cube 4y ago

Hare is not rust adjacent, sorry. It can't even represent the (small) stdlib of rust since it lacks generics, RAII... Not to mention the memory safety. It belongs in a different class of languages.

ncmncm 4y ago
"Toys"
0des 4y ago
You are not correct but I'll accept your opinion as your understanding of it.

kaba0 4y ago

Go's lack of expressivity and weak as hell type system is hardly close to Rust, like I can barely see a similarity other than both being a PL. Hell, probably Java is closer to Rust than Go, at least it is also nominally typed.