3 ms·

> all methodologies have tradeoff's go and clojure sit near the bottom of this list in bugs/committ: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.10220.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/

> all methodologies have tradeoff's go and clojure sit near the bottom of this list in bugs/committ: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.10220.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.10220.pdf You have linked a study which, if you read the abstract, effectively claims "we tried to reproduce a study about bugs-by-programming-language, and could not. We have concluded their methodology was flawed". I can't find information in your linked source that support anything about type-system complexity resulting in more bugs. > But if go has so many problems why do people use it? If candy is bad for your health, why do people eat it? Surely people eating candy is proof it's good for your health. That's the argument you're making here. We can show candy is bad for your health, and the comment you originally replied to provided a mix of reasons why they saw go as having problems and ignoring programming research. All of those are more evidence than what you've replied with, which is essentially "but go is popular", entirely ignoring their concrete points. Anyway, if people choosing a language is proof that a language doesn't have problems, that surely means PHP, Java, python, C, etc have fewer problems than Go since they all are used much more than it. Again, a language being good and people using it are not necessarily related. People eat candy despite it being bad for them. People code in Go despite it being designed like "C, but with GC" Perhaps rob pike said it best: > 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 As rob pike so clearly said, perhaps go is successful because it is intentionally a poorly designed language, intentionally one that eschews programming research in order to appeal to python programmers.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
Rob Pike did not "clearly say" anything of the kind. You are badly distorting what he said. Maybe try reading it again without bias? As for the rest of your post, you dismiss the study as flawed. Fine. But most of the rest is your candy analogy, which is also flawed. One could just as easily say that people like you like... whatever languages you like... in the same way that people like cocaine, because it makes them feel smarter than everyone else. Such "proof by analogy" doesn't say anything meaningful or arguable. The one other thing you said is that "the language being good" and "being used" are two different things. But I have a different view of programmers than you seem to. They aren't toddlers with no self-control reaching for what's bad for them (or drug addicts either, in my flawed analogy). Programmers use languages because, despite their flaws, the languages are still better for their use case than the alternatives. You have to judge a language as a whole package - syntax, semantics, build-in libraries, third-party libraries, ability to find people who know it, help available on Stack Overflow, all of it. Go (and PHP and Java and C/C++) have significant market share because, for significant classes of problems, they still are better than the available alternatives. I trust the people actually building stuff. They are the hardest people to fool.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

Rob Pike did not "clearly say" anything of the kind. You are badly distorting what he said. Maybe try reading it again without bias? As for the rest of your post, you dismiss the study as flawed. Fine. But most of the rest is your candy analogy, which is also flawed. One could just as easily say that people like you like... whatever languages you like... in the same way that people like cocaine, because it makes them feel smarter than everyone else. Such "proof by analogy" doesn't say anything meaningful or arguable. The one other thing you said is that "the language being good" and "being used" are two different things. But I have a different view of programmers than you seem to. They aren't toddlers with no self-control reaching for what's bad for them (or drug addicts either, in my flawed analogy). Programmers use languages because, despite their flaws, the languages are still better for their use case than the alternatives. You have to judge a language as a whole package - syntax, semantics, build-in libraries, third-party libraries, ability to find people who know it, help available on Stack Overflow, all of it. Go (and PHP and Java and C/C++) have significant market share because, for significant classes of problems, they still are better than the available alternatives. I trust the people actually building stuff. They are the hardest people to fool.