4 ms·

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, bu

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.

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.