3 ms·

Quoting 1984 when discussing the history of a programming language really detracts from any point you’re trying to make. It’s not like we’ve seen some massive

Quoting 1984 when discussing the history of a programming language really detracts from any point you’re trying to make. It’s not like we’ve seen some massive regression in compiler performance. Circumstances changed, and the Go developers changed their minds. What would you do?

kerkeslager 3y ago
> It’s not like we’ve seen some massive regression in compiler performance. Circumstances changed, and the Go developers changed their minds. What would you do? 1. Yes, we didn't see a massive regression in compiler performance. Which begs the question why they didn't benchmark the options to see that might be the case. 2. Circumstances didn't change. The options for how to implement generics are roughly now what they were in 2009. What we need from languages in Go's sphere, is roughly the same as well. 3. What would I have done? a) Benchmark before making claims about speed. b) Assess features from other languages to see what works and what hasn't (literally nothing about the problems with lacking generics was unforseeable--I was talking about them early on and I'm not some sort of prophet). c) Admit rejecting generics was a mistake instead of pretending they were part of the plan all along.
- doctor_eval 3y ago
  This conversation feels like it’s in bad faith. Pike wrote in 2013 that generics were a “weakness” in Go [0]. In terms of changed circumstances, obviously something caused them to spend the time and effort to get it done. Maybe they thought modules were more important? Features don’t just magically appear, they need resourcing. The rest of your points are asinine. You mention benchmarking twice which begs the question, how did they maintain good compiler performance for all these years? Was it just luck? This feels a lot like those conversations where the winners get what they ostensibly wanted, but then they want a pound of flesh to go with it. If you don’t like Go then use something else. The world is full of wonderful programming languages. [0] https://go.dev/blog/slices https://go.dev/blog/slices
  - kerkeslager 3y ago
    > If you don’t like Go then use something else. The world is full of wonderful programming languages. Yes, exactly--wonderful programming languages whose mind share and funding is stolen by Go, a language with a few famous programmers and Googles' names attached, and almost no actual innovation. In fact, in reinventing the wheel Go seems insistent on re-making all the same mistakes other programming languages already made, and take us backwards. Part of the problem is exemplified in this conversation: the Go community's refusal to even acknowledge mistakes were made. And sure, I can go use another language, if I can find a job that uses it. Luckily I'm fairly proficient in a few languages which are in no short demand, but none of them are new or interesting. I would love if there was significant job stability in Elixir, for example. But there isn't. Meanwhile Go has the 11th spot on the IEEE list[1], through no deserving qualities of its own. I'm not a winner getting what I wanted, and then wanting a pound of flesh in addition. I'm more of a frustrated loser here--sure, I was right about Go needing generics, but it's a Pyrrhic victory, because Go still has a bunch of market share while better languages languish in obscurity. And it's not just me losing: we all lose if we have to use poorly-designed languages and the lower-quality programs which result from them. [1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/top-programming-languages-2022 https://spectrum.ieee.org/top-programming-languages-2022
    - doctor_eval 3y ago
      Yeah - Go is way up there with… PHP and sh! The horror! Seriously tho, take a break. Go has strengths and weaknesses like any language; generics is a weirdly specific thing to get hung up on, especially since they admitted it was a weakness and they fixed it. I mean, Java didn’t have generics for, what, 10 years? And Java generics are - in my opinion - a shitshow. And Java is #5 on your list. I mean - just look at the top five languages. C doesn’t even have generics, and it’s number 2. C++… not gonna go there. I have never used c# in anger so can’t comment. And I’ve tried to use Python and I hate it for all the reasons I enjoy Go - and it’s number 1. So what? Each of these languages fills a niche. It’s not worth getting upset about it. I’ve been developing software for a very long time, and I’ve forgotten more languages than most people ever learn. I like Go and I think they have made perfectly reasonable trade offs. You’re welcome to your opinion, but complaining about a moderately popular language stealing mind share is kinda weird.
alex_lav 3y ago
> Circumstances changed What circumstances changed, specifically?

kerkeslager 3y ago

> It’s not like we’ve seen some massive regression in compiler performance. Circumstances changed, and the Go developers changed their minds. What would you do? 1. Yes, we didn't see a massive regression in compiler performance. Which begs the question why they didn't benchmark the options to see that might be the case. 2. Circumstances didn't change. The options for how to implement generics are roughly now what they were in 2009. What we need from languages in Go's sphere, is roughly the same as well. 3. What would I have done? a) Benchmark before making claims about speed. b) Assess features from other languages to see what works and what hasn't (literally nothing about the problems with lacking generics was unforseeable--I was talking about them early on and I'm not some sort of prophet). c) Admit rejecting generics was a mistake instead of pretending they were part of the plan all along.

doctor_eval 3y ago
This conversation feels like it’s in bad faith. Pike wrote in 2013 that generics were a “weakness” in Go [0]. In terms of changed circumstances, obviously something caused them to spend the time and effort to get it done. Maybe they thought modules were more important? Features don’t just magically appear, they need resourcing. The rest of your points are asinine. You mention benchmarking twice which begs the question, how did they maintain good compiler performance for all these years? Was it just luck? This feels a lot like those conversations where the winners get what they ostensibly wanted, but then they want a pound of flesh to go with it. If you don’t like Go then use something else. The world is full of wonderful programming languages. [0] https://go.dev/blog/slices https://go.dev/blog/slices
- kerkeslager 3y ago
  > If you don’t like Go then use something else. The world is full of wonderful programming languages. Yes, exactly--wonderful programming languages whose mind share and funding is stolen by Go, a language with a few famous programmers and Googles' names attached, and almost no actual innovation. In fact, in reinventing the wheel Go seems insistent on re-making all the same mistakes other programming languages already made, and take us backwards. Part of the problem is exemplified in this conversation: the Go community's refusal to even acknowledge mistakes were made. And sure, I can go use another language, if I can find a job that uses it. Luckily I'm fairly proficient in a few languages which are in no short demand, but none of them are new or interesting. I would love if there was significant job stability in Elixir, for example. But there isn't. Meanwhile Go has the 11th spot on the IEEE list[1], through no deserving qualities of its own. I'm not a winner getting what I wanted, and then wanting a pound of flesh in addition. I'm more of a frustrated loser here--sure, I was right about Go needing generics, but it's a Pyrrhic victory, because Go still has a bunch of market share while better languages languish in obscurity. And it's not just me losing: we all lose if we have to use poorly-designed languages and the lower-quality programs which result from them. [1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/top-programming-languages-2022 https://spectrum.ieee.org/top-programming-languages-2022
  - doctor_eval 3y ago
    Yeah - Go is way up there with… PHP and sh! The horror! Seriously tho, take a break. Go has strengths and weaknesses like any language; generics is a weirdly specific thing to get hung up on, especially since they admitted it was a weakness and they fixed it. I mean, Java didn’t have generics for, what, 10 years? And Java generics are - in my opinion - a shitshow. And Java is #5 on your list. I mean - just look at the top five languages. C doesn’t even have generics, and it’s number 2. C++… not gonna go there. I have never used c# in anger so can’t comment. And I’ve tried to use Python and I hate it for all the reasons I enjoy Go - and it’s number 1. So what? Each of these languages fills a niche. It’s not worth getting upset about it. I’ve been developing software for a very long time, and I’ve forgotten more languages than most people ever learn. I like Go and I think they have made perfectly reasonable trade offs. You’re welcome to your opinion, but complaining about a moderately popular language stealing mind share is kinda weird.

alex_lav 3y ago

> Circumstances changed What circumstances changed, specifically?