9 ms·

> on the spectrum of PLs it's got more support than most Go definitely has much more funding and developer hours put into it than open-development languages li

by pansa2 3y ago

> on the spectrum of PLs it's got more support than most Go definitely has much more funding and developer hours put into it than open-development languages like Python - that’s got to be a good thing for the language. On the other hand, would you choose to build a long-term business on top of Go, given that all that support comes from one company? What if Google decide that maintaining Go is no longer in their best interest?

demi56 3y ago
What makes you think that Google has active authority over Go development?,
- vitorsr 3y ago
  As I understand it, Go is funded by Google in the sense that core language development is largely undertaken by Google employees, not in the sense that an independent language foundation organization that receives funding from external backers invests in core language development.
- patmorgan23 3y ago
  Well the language was created by Google employees and Google funds the majority of development work on GO.
usrbinbash 3y ago
> On the other hand, would you choose to build a long-term business on top of Go a) Absolutely and b) already done. Go is stable. The language is battle tested. It works as advertised. It is open source. Even if google pulled all funding (unlikely, since alot of their architecture seems to use it), the language is maintainable. And btw. Languages don't have to continuously evolve to remain viable. Modern languages seem to indicate otherwise, but that behavior is what Go actively avoids; adding everything and the kitchen sink into the language as soon as some other language has it. If Go showed one thing, it is that PLs don't need to add as many features as possible. And just to prove that point: C is still a top rated language in terms of usage. When was it last updated? C17 came out in 2017, and did not add new features. It superseded C11, which came out 6 years before that, also mainly standardising things that were already de-factos in most compilers. Before that was C99 in 1999, and before that is only ANSI-C and K&R.
- SubjectToChange 3y ago
  It is open source. Even if google pulled all funding … the language is maintainable. First of all it’s not just an issue of maintaining the language itself, but all of the associated tooling as well. Second of all, it’s not just that Google could pull support, but that Google could choose to prioritize their own needs over the rest of the community. And btw. Languages don't have to continuously evolve to remain viable. … If Go showed one thing, it is that PLs don't need to add as many features as possible. Go advocates say this often enough that it’s honestly beginning to come off as an insecurity. And I would be concerned about cultivating a community around “less is more, Go should only evolve as a last resort”. Moreover, keep in mind that the primary selling point of Go were goroutines. At the time Go was particularly well suited to exploit a gap left by other languages. Fast forward to today and Go has become a significantly less compelling option. And just to prove that point: C is still a top rated language in terms of usage. When was it last updated? Projects written in pure ISO C are relatively few and far between. In fact many high profile C projects are exclusively tied to one or two compilers. Furthermore, ISO C has delegated a lot of functionality to external standards like POSIX instead of giving them first class support, not to mention the plethora of nonstandard language extensions found in many compilers[0]. In other words, ISO C has stagnated, albeit C23 is a big update, while the C language has evolved. Anyway, as I see it, golang is basically a dead end as a PL. It doesn’t interface well with other languages, it doesn’t substantially differentiate itself as a PL, any nuance you encounter with the language is likely to never be fixed, it’s a poor language for writing great libraries and/or abstractions, etc. That said, plenty of great businesses have been built on top of languages like PHP, so it can definitely work. Personally I don’t expect anything like another kubernetes coming out of the language again. [0]https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/C-Extensions.html https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/C-Extensions.html
  - usrbinbash 3y ago
    > First of all it’s not just an issue of maintaining the language itself, but all of the associated tooling as well. Which is part of the language core, and distributed alongside it. > Google could choose to prioritize their own needs over the rest of the community. Which they would do why, and how specifically? This isn't a server or a database, it's a PL. What specific scenario do you see for such a change? And even in that unlikely scenario, the language is open source, and the community can fork it. > Go advocates say this often enough that it’s honestly beginning to come off as an insecurity. How anyone choses to interpret this message, is their business. We say it because it's true. > And I would be concerned about cultivating a community around “less is more Why? It seems to work exceedingly well. And there are more than enough languages following the "everything-and-the-kitchen-sink" approach already. What benefit would there be in trying to secure a tiny portion of a niche that is already overfilled? > that the primary selling point of Go were goroutines They were one of the selling points. What anyone sees as "the primary" point is a matter of opinion. For many people, the primary selling point of Go is the simplicity of the language. > Fast forward to today and Go has become a significantly less compelling option. Really? What other mainstream language uses CSPs with the same syntactic ease and core-language support? > Anyway, as I see it, golang is basically a dead end as a PL. What data specifically supports that point of view? Because, going by usage metrics, like code contributed, Go is easily among the most used languages, and still growing. If you have different metrics, please, do share them here.
TeddyDD 3y ago
Without any hesitation. Google won't kill Go given how much they use it internally. Even if they do, someone else will take over. Additional benefit of choosing Go over Python is lack of breaking changes in minor releases.
- crabbone 3y ago
  What if Google goes under? What if the next big lawsuit against Google makes it disown portions of its business, and they say goodby to Go as a result? (That actually happened to IBM for example, at the time they were virtually the sole provider of all software services in the world -- that's more or less why and how we have software industry today). What makes you so convinced "someone" will take over? Is there anyone who offered themselves in such capacity? I've heard a lot of people making similar bold claims about Python 2.X -- sure, someone will step in and maintain Python 2.X indefinitely... Well, no one did.
  - betaby 3y ago
    > What if Google goes under? What if Sun goes under? Oh, wait... > and they say goodby to Go as a result? and they say goodbye to Java as a result? > and maintain Python 2.X indefinitely.. Someone said that? Anyway 20 years of 2.x branch is pretty impressive.
    - crabbone 3y ago
      You took just one example. And, although there weren't many cases of proprietary languages or almost-proprietary languages dying in recent years, there are, of course, examples of them dying. You just picked one where this didn't happen... So, ActionScript would be one example. Dylan would be another. There are probably many more of lesser known proprietary languages that died never making the news. And, looping back to the original subject: parent believes there's no danger in using an almost-proprietary language, where the evidence is that owners of proprietary languages do kill them every now and then. Do they do it all the time? -- well, no, but I didn't claim anything like that... --- As to your observation about Python 2.X -- you didn't understand in what context the argument was made. C, or any other language with a standard is warranted the lifetime that's as long as humanity is able to read and understand the standard as well as implementing it. So, 20 years will be essentially insignificant compared to the longevity of a language with a published standard. Please don't confuse this to me advocating for every language needing a standard. Writing one severely restricts what a language can offer, while at the same time, immortalizing potentially harmful features. Going back to see, we wish today that all the str* stuff would be gone, or stuff like atoi()... but that's not an option anymore, because this stuff made it into the standard. Languages w/o one can shed their skin and remove bad decisions. But, this same feature makes them less viable for long-term projects.
Art9681 3y ago
Go is so deeply embedded in Cloud computing that if it were abandoned it would break the internet. Some of the most critical systems are built with it. If it’s good enough for Kubernetes then it’s good enough for any business.
- crabbone 3y ago
  I believe, Kubernetes was initially built in Java. Its codebase reeks of Java for miles even today. I'm pretty sure that porting it back to Java wouldn't be too hard, should Google discontinue Go. Pretty sure Internet and cloud will not go anywhere if Go vanishes tomorrow. Even if you need containers, there are plenty of tools that don't use Go, and give you similar service. I've lived enough to see technologies with humongous popularity die in a matter of years (eg. Flash). Those who didn't believe Flash would die made very similar arguments about how certain things would be "impossible" w/o it. Not sure who am I quoting here, but there's this saying that "cemeteries are full of indispensable people".
  - bananapub 3y ago
    > I'm pretty sure that porting it back to Java wouldn't be too hard, should Google discontinue Go. lol
nilamo 3y ago
> On the other hand, would you choose to build a long-term business on top of Go, given that all that support comes from one company? Like Java? Or c#? Go is hardly unique in that it's developed primarily by a single entity. ...but even if Google abandoned it, it seems like you're making the assumption that no one in the world would continue developing an open source project, and the source would just become unusable, or something? It's not like Google can just turn off go lmao
- pjmlp 3y ago
  Java is developed by several companies, there are plenty of alternative implementations in the same vein as C and C++ compilers.
onthecanposting 3y ago
I would be more concerned that Google maintains the language because they do or intend to use it for one of their surveillance or monetization schemes.

by pansa2 3y ago

demi56 3y ago

What makes you think that Google has active authority over Go development?,

vitorsr 3y ago
As I understand it, Go is funded by Google in the sense that core language development is largely undertaken by Google employees, not in the sense that an independent language foundation organization that receives funding from external backers invests in core language development.
patmorgan23 3y ago
Well the language was created by Google employees and Google funds the majority of development work on GO.

usrbinbash 3y ago

> On the other hand, would you choose to build a long-term business on top of Go a) Absolutely and b) already done. Go is stable. The language is battle tested. It works as advertised. It is open source. Even if google pulled all funding (unlikely, since alot of their architecture seems to use it), the language is maintainable. And btw. Languages don't have to continuously evolve to remain viable. Modern languages seem to indicate otherwise, but that behavior is what Go actively avoids; adding everything and the kitchen sink into the language as soon as some other language has it. If Go showed one thing, it is that PLs don't need to add as many features as possible. And just to prove that point: C is still a top rated language in terms of usage. When was it last updated? C17 came out in 2017, and did not add new features. It superseded C11, which came out 6 years before that, also mainly standardising things that were already de-factos in most compilers. Before that was C99 in 1999, and before that is only ANSI-C and K&R.

SubjectToChange 3y ago
It is open source. Even if google pulled all funding … the language is maintainable. First of all it’s not just an issue of maintaining the language itself, but all of the associated tooling as well. Second of all, it’s not just that Google could pull support, but that Google could choose to prioritize their own needs over the rest of the community. And btw. Languages don't have to continuously evolve to remain viable. … If Go showed one thing, it is that PLs don't need to add as many features as possible. Go advocates say this often enough that it’s honestly beginning to come off as an insecurity. And I would be concerned about cultivating a community around “less is more, Go should only evolve as a last resort”. Moreover, keep in mind that the primary selling point of Go were goroutines. At the time Go was particularly well suited to exploit a gap left by other languages. Fast forward to today and Go has become a significantly less compelling option. And just to prove that point: C is still a top rated language in terms of usage. When was it last updated? Projects written in pure ISO C are relatively few and far between. In fact many high profile C projects are exclusively tied to one or two compilers. Furthermore, ISO C has delegated a lot of functionality to external standards like POSIX instead of giving them first class support, not to mention the plethora of nonstandard language extensions found in many compilers[0]. In other words, ISO C has stagnated, albeit C23 is a big update, while the C language has evolved. Anyway, as I see it, golang is basically a dead end as a PL. It doesn’t interface well with other languages, it doesn’t substantially differentiate itself as a PL, any nuance you encounter with the language is likely to never be fixed, it’s a poor language for writing great libraries and/or abstractions, etc. That said, plenty of great businesses have been built on top of languages like PHP, so it can definitely work. Personally I don’t expect anything like another kubernetes coming out of the language again. [0]https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/C-Extensions.html https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/C-Extensions.html
- usrbinbash 3y ago
  > First of all it’s not just an issue of maintaining the language itself, but all of the associated tooling as well. Which is part of the language core, and distributed alongside it. > Google could choose to prioritize their own needs over the rest of the community. Which they would do why, and how specifically? This isn't a server or a database, it's a PL. What specific scenario do you see for such a change? And even in that unlikely scenario, the language is open source, and the community can fork it. > Go advocates say this often enough that it’s honestly beginning to come off as an insecurity. How anyone choses to interpret this message, is their business. We say it because it's true. > And I would be concerned about cultivating a community around “less is more Why? It seems to work exceedingly well. And there are more than enough languages following the "everything-and-the-kitchen-sink" approach already. What benefit would there be in trying to secure a tiny portion of a niche that is already overfilled? > that the primary selling point of Go were goroutines They were one of the selling points. What anyone sees as "the primary" point is a matter of opinion. For many people, the primary selling point of Go is the simplicity of the language. > Fast forward to today and Go has become a significantly less compelling option. Really? What other mainstream language uses CSPs with the same syntactic ease and core-language support? > Anyway, as I see it, golang is basically a dead end as a PL. What data specifically supports that point of view? Because, going by usage metrics, like code contributed, Go is easily among the most used languages, and still growing. If you have different metrics, please, do share them here.

TeddyDD 3y ago

Without any hesitation. Google won't kill Go given how much they use it internally. Even if they do, someone else will take over. Additional benefit of choosing Go over Python is lack of breaking changes in minor releases.

crabbone 3y ago
What if Google goes under? What if the next big lawsuit against Google makes it disown portions of its business, and they say goodby to Go as a result? (That actually happened to IBM for example, at the time they were virtually the sole provider of all software services in the world -- that's more or less why and how we have software industry today). What makes you so convinced "someone" will take over? Is there anyone who offered themselves in such capacity? I've heard a lot of people making similar bold claims about Python 2.X -- sure, someone will step in and maintain Python 2.X indefinitely... Well, no one did.
- betaby 3y ago
  > What if Google goes under? What if Sun goes under? Oh, wait... > and they say goodby to Go as a result? and they say goodbye to Java as a result? > and maintain Python 2.X indefinitely.. Someone said that? Anyway 20 years of 2.x branch is pretty impressive.
  - crabbone 3y ago
    You took just one example. And, although there weren't many cases of proprietary languages or almost-proprietary languages dying in recent years, there are, of course, examples of them dying. You just picked one where this didn't happen... So, ActionScript would be one example. Dylan would be another. There are probably many more of lesser known proprietary languages that died never making the news. And, looping back to the original subject: parent believes there's no danger in using an almost-proprietary language, where the evidence is that owners of proprietary languages do kill them every now and then. Do they do it all the time? -- well, no, but I didn't claim anything like that... --- As to your observation about Python 2.X -- you didn't understand in what context the argument was made. C, or any other language with a standard is warranted the lifetime that's as long as humanity is able to read and understand the standard as well as implementing it. So, 20 years will be essentially insignificant compared to the longevity of a language with a published standard. Please don't confuse this to me advocating for every language needing a standard. Writing one severely restricts what a language can offer, while at the same time, immortalizing potentially harmful features. Going back to see, we wish today that all the str* stuff would be gone, or stuff like atoi()... but that's not an option anymore, because this stuff made it into the standard. Languages w/o one can shed their skin and remove bad decisions. But, this same feature makes them less viable for long-term projects.

Art9681 3y ago

Go is so deeply embedded in Cloud computing that if it were abandoned it would break the internet. Some of the most critical systems are built with it. If it’s good enough for Kubernetes then it’s good enough for any business.

crabbone 3y ago
I believe, Kubernetes was initially built in Java. Its codebase reeks of Java for miles even today. I'm pretty sure that porting it back to Java wouldn't be too hard, should Google discontinue Go. Pretty sure Internet and cloud will not go anywhere if Go vanishes tomorrow. Even if you need containers, there are plenty of tools that don't use Go, and give you similar service. I've lived enough to see technologies with humongous popularity die in a matter of years (eg. Flash). Those who didn't believe Flash would die made very similar arguments about how certain things would be "impossible" w/o it. Not sure who am I quoting here, but there's this saying that "cemeteries are full of indispensable people".
- bananapub 3y ago
  > I'm pretty sure that porting it back to Java wouldn't be too hard, should Google discontinue Go. lol

nilamo 3y ago

> On the other hand, would you choose to build a long-term business on top of Go, given that all that support comes from one company? Like Java? Or c#? Go is hardly unique in that it's developed primarily by a single entity. ...but even if Google abandoned it, it seems like you're making the assumption that no one in the world would continue developing an open source project, and the source would just become unusable, or something? It's not like Google can just turn off go lmao

pjmlp 3y ago
Java is developed by several companies, there are plenty of alternative implementations in the same vein as C and C++ compilers.

onthecanposting 3y ago

I would be more concerned that Google maintains the language because they do or intend to use it for one of their surveillance or monetization schemes.