5 ms·

Atlassian is on that list but I know that last year we rewrote our Go code to Python after our main Go developer left.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
zaphar 14y ago
I've never understood this kind of action. Go is so small you could hold the spec in your hand and it's going to be faster and more efficient than python as well as safer to modify thanks to type safety. If it were haskell, or a similarly difficult language to wrap your head around, I could see wanting to rewrite to something easier to understand. But Go has none of those problems. What could possibly motivate a rewrite?
- pufuwozu 14y ago
  Hopefully we'd never rewrite Haskell - there's enough people here that know it and Haskell is extremely easy to understand. The team rewrote from Go to Python for various reasons: * Tool support (debugging, etc) was supposedly poor * The standard library wrappers were supposedly buggy * They had to write a lot of wrappers and libraries themselves * People on the team were already familiar with Python - after Atlassian's single "Go developer" left, there wasn't much reason to keep it
  - errnoh 14y ago
    Not blaming you, since there were people familiar with Python, it's probably good thing to continue using it. Just thought I'd point out to people that this rewrite was done "last year", which was before Go1 was released march this year. The API was in constant change and it all projects needed constant updating to keep up with weekly releases. (or stick with the r60 with totally different and soon-to-be deprecated API) API is frozen now and life is good.
- eta_carinae 14y ago
  > Go is so small you could hold the spec in your hand and it's going to be faster and more efficient than python as well as safer to modify thanks to type safety. I think it's very naive to think that the value of a language in a corporation is limited to its syntax or compilation speed.
  - sp332 14y ago
    Not just compilation (which is apple-to-oranges since python is bytecode-compiled and then interpreted/JIT compiled), but also execution speed, which means that you need less hardware to do the same job. That's definitely worth something in some cases.
  - zaphar 14y ago
    If I had limited my analysis to just those things you would have a point. I didn't though. errnoh provided the justification OP was missing. The pre Go1 api changes where a very fast moving target so reducing that maintenance burden was a valid concern. My response was just consternation at the desire to rewrite something when the language is simultaneously easy to learn, safer to modify, and probably faster and more efficient at the task than the language you rewrote it to.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

I've never understood this kind of action. Go is so small you could hold the spec in your hand and it's going to be faster and more efficient than python as well as safer to modify thanks to type safety. If it were haskell, or a similarly difficult language to wrap your head around, I could see wanting to rewrite to something easier to understand. But Go has none of those problems. What could possibly motivate a rewrite?

pufuwozu 14y ago
Hopefully we'd never rewrite Haskell - there's enough people here that know it and Haskell is extremely easy to understand. The team rewrote from Go to Python for various reasons: * Tool support (debugging, etc) was supposedly poor * The standard library wrappers were supposedly buggy * They had to write a lot of wrappers and libraries themselves * People on the team were already familiar with Python - after Atlassian's single "Go developer" left, there wasn't much reason to keep it
- errnoh 14y ago
  Not blaming you, since there were people familiar with Python, it's probably good thing to continue using it. Just thought I'd point out to people that this rewrite was done "last year", which was before Go1 was released march this year. The API was in constant change and it all projects needed constant updating to keep up with weekly releases. (or stick with the r60 with totally different and soon-to-be deprecated API) API is frozen now and life is good.
eta_carinae 14y ago
> Go is so small you could hold the spec in your hand and it's going to be faster and more efficient than python as well as safer to modify thanks to type safety. I think it's very naive to think that the value of a language in a corporation is limited to its syntax or compilation speed.
- sp332 14y ago
  Not just compilation (which is apple-to-oranges since python is bytecode-compiled and then interpreted/JIT compiled), but also execution speed, which means that you need less hardware to do the same job. That's definitely worth something in some cases.
- zaphar 14y ago
  If I had limited my analysis to just those things you would have a point. I didn't though. errnoh provided the justification OP was missing. The pre Go1 api changes where a very fast moving target so reducing that maintenance burden was a valid concern. My response was just consternation at the desire to rewrite something when the language is simultaneously easy to learn, safer to modify, and probably faster and more efficient at the task than the language you rewrote it to.