3 ms·

No, it's a way of writing a better language while using Go libraries extensively. The same way Kotlin is a way of writing a better language while using Java lib

by nine_k 2y ago

No, it's a way of writing a better language while using Go libraries extensively. The same way Kotlin is a way of writing a better language while using Java libraries extensively.

pjmlp 2y ago
The difference is that JVM community welcomes languages PhD folks. There is even the JVM Languages Summit. Unthinkable in Go ecosystem.
- nine_k 2y ago
  Maybe because Go is not a VM?
  - pjmlp 2y ago
    Java compiles to native code for two decades now, it has always been a matter of how much one was willing to pay for a commercial JDK. “The key point here is our programmers are Googlers, they’re not researchers. They’re typically, fairly young, fresh out of school, probably learned Java, maybe learned C or C++, probably learned Python. They’re not capable of understanding a brilliant language but we want to use them to build good software. So, the language that we give them has to be easy for them to understand and easy to adopt.” -- Rob Pike
    - nine_k 2y ago
      > our programmers are Googlers ... They’re not capable of understanding a brilliant language Sounds pretty damning, I'd say. This of course illustrates why Go is called "systems PHP". > how much one was willing to pay for a commercial JDK. I strongly prefer open-source tools at the base of my stack. Not as much because of the money but more because of the level of trust. Things should be inspectable.
      - neonsunset 2y ago
        That's what .NET is for (both C# and F#) - it has no private implementations (Unity does not count :P). Much more competent compiler too and smaller native binaries. Something you could confidently use in production.
        skinkestek 2y ago
        Then you have to deal with: - .Net devs (they are almost as annoying as us Java/Kotlin devs) - a language and ecosystem that consistently sacrifice backwards compatibility (contrary to us who have features sacrificed for backwards compatibility at every single step) - you have to live without the JVM ecosystem (on this I have no self deprecating comment, C# is a better language, but the ecosystem, from libraries to build system to IDEs is something I always miss when I work in .Net.)
        neonsunset 2y ago
        “Contrary to us”? I can’t agree with this attitude. .NET maintains excellent backwards compatibility, C# and F# even more so. The changes either affect frameworks and libraries, which you can often update independently or are easily addressed. Most projects since .NET 5 only ever had to bump the target version and rebuild to move forward (notable exception: in .NET 6 ASP.NET Core introduced simplified API for application setup which required changes). Neither JVM nor Go have the degree of low-level capabilities .NET provides first-class support for. And F# integrates in an easier way into existing C# solutions than Kotlin does into Java ones. It is the GC-based Rust alternative many are looking for but are overlooking due to bias from the past.
        skinkestek 2y ago
        Yes, I'm talking about the platform, not the syntax. It is my feeling that .Net developers with some years of experience get wide eyed when I tell them how I can use any old library that I need together with the newest JVM and my platform upgrades have mostly consisted of bumping numbers.
    - desumeku 2y ago
      "We hire working-class college graduates from the normal population, and not ivy league graduates who have the time to waste on unproductive academic research languages that see no industrial use." Is this what is so damning about Go? The constant reposting of this quote as some sort of attack on Go's validity and reputation reeks of nothing but classism.
      - erik_seaberg 2y ago
        Google is famous for tough interviews and accepting a small fraction of applicants. I was impressed with everyone I met, and Pike's "incapable" statement was baseless and insulting.
        onefiveone 2y ago
        > Pike's "incapable" statement was baseless and insulting. "incapable" != "never capable", especially when talking about fresh college graduates.
        nine_k 2y ago
        "Unwilling", "have no time", "can't be bothered" are all better than "incapable".
      - codr7 2y ago
        The complaint is that it was designed for lesser brains and lacks many features professionals expect, and that's pretty much an objective truth.
        desumeku 2y ago
        This is a horrifically obtuse and offensive comment just because Go isn't Lisp-y or Haskell-y enough for you. Golang powers large swathes of distributed services and systems all over the world whether you like it or not, because it was designed with a very specific purpose in mind by people far more professional and accomplished than you ever will be.
- riwsky 2y ago
  Are we just ignoring when they invited Philip “Featherweight Java” Wadler to help them design Go generics? https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11710 https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11710 Or that Robert Griesemer literally is a language PhD, whose thesis was supervised by a little fellow by the name of “Niklaus Wirth”? https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/handle/20.500.11850/141363?show=full https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/handle/20.500.11850/...
  - pjmlp 2y ago
    No, but that isn't what Rob Pike meant, that was the Go design team accepting they alone weren't capable to implement generics in Go, without help from those PhD folks.

by nine_k 2y ago

No, it's a way of writing a better language while using Go libraries extensively. The same way Kotlin is a way of writing a better language while using Java libraries extensively.

pjmlp 2y ago

The difference is that JVM community welcomes languages PhD folks. There is even the JVM Languages Summit. Unthinkable in Go ecosystem.

nine_k 2y ago
Maybe because Go is not a VM?
- pjmlp 2y ago
  Java compiles to native code for two decades now, it has always been a matter of how much one was willing to pay for a commercial JDK. “The key point here is our programmers are Googlers, they’re not researchers. They’re typically, fairly young, fresh out of school, probably learned Java, maybe learned C or C++, probably learned Python. They’re not capable of understanding a brilliant language but we want to use them to build good software. So, the language that we give them has to be easy for them to understand and easy to adopt.” -- Rob Pike
  - nine_k 2y ago
    > our programmers are Googlers ... They’re not capable of understanding a brilliant language Sounds pretty damning, I'd say. This of course illustrates why Go is called "systems PHP". > how much one was willing to pay for a commercial JDK. I strongly prefer open-source tools at the base of my stack. Not as much because of the money but more because of the level of trust. Things should be inspectable.
    - neonsunset 2y ago
      That's what .NET is for (both C# and F#) - it has no private implementations (Unity does not count :P). Much more competent compiler too and smaller native binaries. Something you could confidently use in production.
      - skinkestek 2y ago
        Then you have to deal with: - .Net devs (they are almost as annoying as us Java/Kotlin devs) - a language and ecosystem that consistently sacrifice backwards compatibility (contrary to us who have features sacrificed for backwards compatibility at every single step) - you have to live without the JVM ecosystem (on this I have no self deprecating comment, C# is a better language, but the ecosystem, from libraries to build system to IDEs is something I always miss when I work in .Net.)
        neonsunset 2y ago
        “Contrary to us”? I can’t agree with this attitude. .NET maintains excellent backwards compatibility, C# and F# even more so. The changes either affect frameworks and libraries, which you can often update independently or are easily addressed. Most projects since .NET 5 only ever had to bump the target version and rebuild to move forward (notable exception: in .NET 6 ASP.NET Core introduced simplified API for application setup which required changes). Neither JVM nor Go have the degree of low-level capabilities .NET provides first-class support for. And F# integrates in an easier way into existing C# solutions than Kotlin does into Java ones. It is the GC-based Rust alternative many are looking for but are overlooking due to bias from the past.
        skinkestek 2y ago
        Yes, I'm talking about the platform, not the syntax. It is my feeling that .Net developers with some years of experience get wide eyed when I tell them how I can use any old library that I need together with the newest JVM and my platform upgrades have mostly consisted of bumping numbers.
  - desumeku 2y ago
    "We hire working-class college graduates from the normal population, and not ivy league graduates who have the time to waste on unproductive academic research languages that see no industrial use." Is this what is so damning about Go? The constant reposting of this quote as some sort of attack on Go's validity and reputation reeks of nothing but classism.
    - erik_seaberg 2y ago
      Google is famous for tough interviews and accepting a small fraction of applicants. I was impressed with everyone I met, and Pike's "incapable" statement was baseless and insulting.
      - onefiveone 2y ago
        > Pike's "incapable" statement was baseless and insulting. "incapable" != "never capable", especially when talking about fresh college graduates.
        nine_k 2y ago
        "Unwilling", "have no time", "can't be bothered" are all better than "incapable".
    - codr7 2y ago
      The complaint is that it was designed for lesser brains and lacks many features professionals expect, and that's pretty much an objective truth.
      - desumeku 2y ago
        This is a horrifically obtuse and offensive comment just because Go isn't Lisp-y or Haskell-y enough for you. Golang powers large swathes of distributed services and systems all over the world whether you like it or not, because it was designed with a very specific purpose in mind by people far more professional and accomplished than you ever will be.
riwsky 2y ago
Are we just ignoring when they invited Philip “Featherweight Java” Wadler to help them design Go generics? https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11710 https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11710 Or that Robert Griesemer literally is a language PhD, whose thesis was supervised by a little fellow by the name of “Niklaus Wirth”? https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/handle/20.500.11850/141363?show=full https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/handle/20.500.11850/...
- pjmlp 2y ago
  No, but that isn't what Rob Pike meant, that was the Go design team accepting they alone weren't capable to implement generics in Go, without help from those PhD folks.