2 ms·

This comment is an easy tell. It's so prevalent. Because no one looked at how Go works, what Go does and what its overhead is. Not even mentioning, rightfully p

This comment is an easy tell. It's so prevalent. Because no one looked at how Go works, what Go does and what its overhead is. Not even mentioning, rightfully pointed out, a complete joke of a type system that completely disregards any improvements made since 80s.

bayindirh 3y ago
> Because no one looked at how Go works, what Go does and what its overhead is. I develop using Go, thanks. > Not even mentioning, rightfully pointed out, a complete joke of a type system that completely disregards any improvements made since 80s. One of the designers of Go is Rob Pike, who's worked on C, UNIX and Plan 9. I think the language embodies the core principles put out by these "things" pretty well. If we're talking about "development time overhead" of Go, initial momentum building is a bit slow, but after it starts rolling it's deviously fast. If we're talking about "runtime overhead", I can say it's "fast enough" for what it's designed for. If we're talking about "storage overhead", you can always dynamically link it.
- neonsunset 3y ago
  Using the language is not the same as understanding its design and being familiar with its implementation details.
  - bayindirh 3y ago
    True, yet I tend to read the specs, (bundled) libraries and compiler design docs of the languages I use, because I don't like to fly blind, if you pardon the term. I didn't advance into stdlib and compiler yet (I'm a beginner in Go, I may say), but its behavior didn't disappoint me yet, and the specs make sense. I have a couple of multithreaded tools on the roadmap, which will help me understand the gopher better.
    - neonsunset 3y ago
      It's a bad language with obtuse and verbose design, a caricature of Elixir, a mockery of Modula-2 and a cautionary tale of C.
      - bayindirh 3y ago
        Which I enjoy. These things are subjective, and I agree to disagree. Have a nice day :)
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    True. But writing short critical posts on HN isn't the same as understanding the language, either. Why should we believe your opinion on the language to be more correct than bayindirh's? Frankly, you sound like a zealot, and I distrust zealots in the area of computer language design. (I distrust them in a lot of other areas, too.) I trust pragmatists a lot more. You've shown off a decent vocabulary, but there's far more rant than substance. Got any substance to show us why we should listen to your opinion?

bayindirh 3y ago

> Because no one looked at how Go works, what Go does and what its overhead is. I develop using Go, thanks. > Not even mentioning, rightfully pointed out, a complete joke of a type system that completely disregards any improvements made since 80s. One of the designers of Go is Rob Pike, who's worked on C, UNIX and Plan 9. I think the language embodies the core principles put out by these "things" pretty well. If we're talking about "development time overhead" of Go, initial momentum building is a bit slow, but after it starts rolling it's deviously fast. If we're talking about "runtime overhead", I can say it's "fast enough" for what it's designed for. If we're talking about "storage overhead", you can always dynamically link it.

neonsunset 3y ago
Using the language is not the same as understanding its design and being familiar with its implementation details.
- bayindirh 3y ago
  True, yet I tend to read the specs, (bundled) libraries and compiler design docs of the languages I use, because I don't like to fly blind, if you pardon the term. I didn't advance into stdlib and compiler yet (I'm a beginner in Go, I may say), but its behavior didn't disappoint me yet, and the specs make sense. I have a couple of multithreaded tools on the roadmap, which will help me understand the gopher better.
  - neonsunset 3y ago
    It's a bad language with obtuse and verbose design, a caricature of Elixir, a mockery of Modula-2 and a cautionary tale of C.
    - bayindirh 3y ago
      Which I enjoy. These things are subjective, and I agree to disagree. Have a nice day :)
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  True. But writing short critical posts on HN isn't the same as understanding the language, either. Why should we believe your opinion on the language to be more correct than bayindirh's? Frankly, you sound like a zealot, and I distrust zealots in the area of computer language design. (I distrust them in a lot of other areas, too.) I trust pragmatists a lot more. You've shown off a decent vocabulary, but there's far more rant than substance. Got any substance to show us why we should listen to your opinion?