6 ms·

This is a great response but this is "why is Go better than JavaScript?" whereas my question is "why is Go better than C#, given that C# was famously created by

This is a great response but this is "why is Go better than JavaScript?" whereas my question is "why is Go better than C#, given that C# was famously created by the guy writing the blog post and Go is a language from a competitor?" C# and TypeScript are Hejlsberg's children; C# is such an obvious pick that there must have been a monster problem with it that they didn't think could ever be fixed. C# has all that stuff that the FAQ mentions about Go while also having an obvious political benefit. I'd hope the creator of said language who also made the decision not to use it would have an interesting opinion on the topic! I really hope we find out the real story. As a C# developer I don't want to be offended but, like, I thought we were friends? What did we do wrong???

fixprix 2y ago
Anders answers that question here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10qowKUW82U&t=1154s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10qowKUW82U&t=1154s Transcript: "But I will say that I think Go definitely is much more low-level. I'd say it's the lowest level language we can get to and still have automatic garbage collection. It's the most native-first language we can get to and still have automatic GC. In contrast, C# is sort of bytecode-first, if you will. There are some ahead-of-time compilation options available, but they're not on all platforms and don't really have a decade or more of hardening. They weren't engineered that way to begin with. I think Go also has a little more expressiveness when it comes to data structure layout, inline structs, and so forth."
- electroly 2y ago
  This is a great link, thank you! For anyone who can't watch the video, he mentions a few things (summarizing briefly just the linked time code, it's worth a watch): - Go being the lowest level language that still has garbage collection - Inline structs and other data structure expressiveness features - Existing JS code is in a C-like function+data structure style and not an OOP style, this is easier to translate directly to Go while C# would require OOPifying it.
- polskibus 2y ago
  A missed opportunity to improve c# by dogfooding it with TS compiler rewrite.
  - mohsen1 2y ago
    C# is too old to change that drastically, just like me
  - geodel 2y ago
    They are trying to finish their current project and not redo all the projects which their current project may depend upon.
    - cxr 2y ago
      "Finish"?
- vips7L 2y ago
  An unpopular pick that is probably more low level than Go but also still has a GC: D. Understandable why you wouldn't pick D though. Its ecosystem is extremely small.
  - 999900000999 2y ago
    I think you D fans need to dogfood a startup based around it. It's a fascinating language, but it lacks a flagship product. I feel the same way about Haxe. Someone created an amazing language, but it lacks a big enough community. Realistically languages need 2 things for adoption. Momentum and ease of use. Rust has more momentum than ease, but arguably can solve problems higher level languages can't. I'm half imagining a hackathon like format where teams are challenged to use niche languages. The foundations behind these languages can fund prizes.
    - vips7L 2y ago
      Did my post come off as a fan? I directly criticized its ecosystem. It wouldn't be my first pick either. I was just making conversation that there are other options. And AFAIK Symmetry Investments is that dogfood startup.
- WuxiFingerHold 2y ago
  Thanks for the link. I'm not fully convinced by Anders answer. C# has records, first class functions, structs, span. Much control and I'd say more than Go. I'd even say C# is much closer to TS than Go is. You can use records for the data structures. The only little annoyance is that you need to write the functions as static methods. So an argument for easy translation would lead to C#. Also, C# has advantages over Go, e.g. null safety. Sure, AOT is not as mature in C# but is this reason enough to be a show stopper? It seems there're other reasons Anders don't want to address publicly. Maybe as simple reasons as "Go is 10 times easier to pick up than C#" and "language features don't matter when the project matters". Those would indeed hurt the image of C# and Anders obviously don't want that. But I don't see it as big drama.
  - mexicocitinluez 2y ago
    I dont think there are other reasons. The side-by-sides that show how Go code is closer to the current TS code (visually) than C# would be are pretty compelling. He made it pretty clear they're "porting" not rewriting.
    - WuxiFingerHold 2y ago
      After reading the long Github thread, I think you're right. It's probably just as simple as "what is the easiest way to copy our TS code 1:1 to a faster language". And this case Go wins due to its simplicity.
      - mexicocitinluez 2y ago
        What's funny is that while I understood a chunk about why that made that decision, a ton of things they were talking about went over my head. But then we they showed the side-by-side, I was like "Well that makes sense".
  - saturn_vk 2y ago
    > You can use records for the data structures. The only little annoyance is that you need to write the functions as static methods. So an argument for easy translation would lead to C#. Also, C# has advantages over Go, e.g. null safety. Wouldn't these things be useful if you are making an actual compiler, that would run TS? Since in this case, the runtime is JS, I don't think any of these things would get any usage, unless they are used in the existing transpiler.
- Rapzid 2y ago
  Sounds like C# was too late with dictionary collection expressions.
vessenes 2y ago
It’s a political anti-benefit in most of the open-source world. And C# is not considered a high quality runtime once you leave Windows.
- fabian2k 2y ago
  Modern C# (.NET Core and newer) works perfectly fine on Linux.
- electroly 2y ago
  This is Anders Hejlsberg, the creator of C#, working on a politically important project at Microsoft. That's what I mean by political benefit. The larger open source world doesn't matter for this decision which is why this is a simple announcement of an internal Microsoft decision rather than an invitation for comments ahead of time.
  - vessenes 2y ago
    I’m sure Microsoft’s strategy department would disagree with you. As a c# devotee - I get that you’re upset. And you may want to update your priors on where c# sits in Microsoft’s current world. But I think it’s a mistake to imagine this isn’t a well reasoned decision.
    - electroly 2y ago
      They can disagree if they want but as a career-long Microsoft developer they can't fool me that easily. I'm not even complaining, I'm just stating a fact that high-level steering decisions like this are made in Teams meetings between Microsoft employees, not in open discussion with the community. It's the same in .NET, which is a very open source project whose highest-level decisions are, nonetheless, made in Teams meetings between Microsoft employees and then announced to the public. I'm fine with this but let's not kid ourselves about it. That said, I must have misstated my opinion if it seems like I didn't think they have a good reason. This is Anders Hejlsberg. The guy is a genius; he definitely has a good reason. They just didn't say what it is in this blog post (but did elsewhere in a podcast video linked in the HN thread).
jodrellblank 2y ago
> "given that C# was famously created by the guy writing the blog post" What is this logic? "You worked on C# years ago so you must use C# for everything"? "You must dictate C# to every team you lead forever, no matter what skills they have"? "You must uphold a dogma that C# is the best language for everything, because you touched it last"? Why aren't you using this logic to argue that they should use Delphi or TurboPascal because Anders Hejlsberg created those? Because there is no logic; the person who created hammers doesn't have to use hammers to solve every problem.
- uticus 2y ago
  Yes, but C# is the Microsoft language, and I would say TypeScript is 2nd place Microsoft language (sorry F# folks - in terms of popularity not objective greatness of course). So it's not just that the lead architect of C# is involved in the TypeScript changes. It's also that this is under the same roof and the same sign hangs on the building outside for both languages. If Ford made a car and powered it with a Chevy engine, wouldn't you be curious what was going on also?
  - jay_kyburz 2y ago
    It's a bad look for both C# and TypeScript. Anybody starting a new code base now would be looking for ways to avoid both and jump right to Go.
    - bdangubic 2y ago
      if I had to use Go I’d change my career and go do some gardening :)
      - ricardobeat 2y ago
        I'd probably have said the same 5 years ago, it's surprising how easy you change sides once you actually use it in a team.
        2y ago
almosthere 2y ago
.NET executables requires a runtime environment to be installed. Go executables do not. TSC is installed in too many places for that burden to be placed all of a sudden. It is the same reason why Java has had a complicated acceptance history too. It's fine in the places that it is pre-installed, but no where else. Node/React/Typescript developers do not want to install .net all of a sudden. If you react that poorly, pretend they decided they decided to write it in Java and ask if you think Node/React/Typescript developers WANT to install Java.
- afavour 2y ago
  FYI this hasn’t been the case with C# for a very long time now.
- vips7L 2y ago
  .NET has been able to build a self contained single file executable for both the JIT and AOT target for a quite some time. Java also does not require the user to install a runtime. JLink and JPackage have both been around for a long time.
  - yakz 2y ago
    Maybe some other runtimes do this or it has been changed, but in the past self-contained singe-file .NET deployment just meant that it rolled all the files up during publishing and when you run it, it extracted them to a folder. Not really like a single statically linked executable.
    - vips7L 2y ago
      It hasn't done that in years.
    - webprofusion 2y ago
      You can indeed produce a compiled native executable with minimal bloat: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/deploying/native-aot/ https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/deploying/nati...
cryptonector 2y ago
GP's answer is a great answer to why Go instead of Rust, which u/no_wizard asked about. And the answer to that boils down to the need to traverse data structures in ways which Rust makes difficult, and the simplicity of a GC.
- nimchimpsky 2y ago
  [dead]
WD-42 2y ago
[flagged]
- _bin_ 2y ago
  C# is a decently-designed language, but its first principles are being microsoft-y and java-y, which are perhaps two of my least favorite principles. that aside, i've worked on C# backends deployed to lots of linux boxes and it's not really second-rate these days.
- debugnik 2y ago
  Microsoft's implementation has been cross platform for almost a decade now. You're way too late to the Mono FUD party.
  - WD-42 2y ago
    Almost a decade? Amazing. Considering go has been cross platform since its inception almost twice as long as that, rust too, it’s no wonder developer mindshare is elsewhere.
whattidywhat 2y ago
I'm not saying this to start a language war but. Look at the cognitive complexity and tooling complexity involved in a c# project. Seriously, every speed bump you hit in your ide think about how many pieces of knowledge you assemble to solve it. Similarly think about the overhead in designing both the software and tests. Think about cross platform builds and the tooling required to stand up ops infrastructure. Measure the compilation time. Think about the impedance mismatch between ts and c#. Compare that to go. It's not even close. I see comments bickering about the size of executable files... Almost no major product cares about that within order of magnitude. Go is a wild choice to write a compiler in. Literally in my top 10 things I never want to do. Everything else about it drove them to do it.

fixprix 2y ago

Anders answers that question here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10qowKUW82U&t=1154s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10qowKUW82U&t=1154s Transcript: "But I will say that I think Go definitely is much more low-level. I'd say it's the lowest level language we can get to and still have automatic garbage collection. It's the most native-first language we can get to and still have automatic GC. In contrast, C# is sort of bytecode-first, if you will. There are some ahead-of-time compilation options available, but they're not on all platforms and don't really have a decade or more of hardening. They weren't engineered that way to begin with. I think Go also has a little more expressiveness when it comes to data structure layout, inline structs, and so forth."

electroly 2y ago
This is a great link, thank you! For anyone who can't watch the video, he mentions a few things (summarizing briefly just the linked time code, it's worth a watch): - Go being the lowest level language that still has garbage collection - Inline structs and other data structure expressiveness features - Existing JS code is in a C-like function+data structure style and not an OOP style, this is easier to translate directly to Go while C# would require OOPifying it.
polskibus 2y ago
A missed opportunity to improve c# by dogfooding it with TS compiler rewrite.
- mohsen1 2y ago
  C# is too old to change that drastically, just like me
- geodel 2y ago
  They are trying to finish their current project and not redo all the projects which their current project may depend upon.
  - cxr 2y ago
    "Finish"?
vips7L 2y ago
An unpopular pick that is probably more low level than Go but also still has a GC: D. Understandable why you wouldn't pick D though. Its ecosystem is extremely small.
- 999900000999 2y ago
  I think you D fans need to dogfood a startup based around it. It's a fascinating language, but it lacks a flagship product. I feel the same way about Haxe. Someone created an amazing language, but it lacks a big enough community. Realistically languages need 2 things for adoption. Momentum and ease of use. Rust has more momentum than ease, but arguably can solve problems higher level languages can't. I'm half imagining a hackathon like format where teams are challenged to use niche languages. The foundations behind these languages can fund prizes.
  - vips7L 2y ago
    Did my post come off as a fan? I directly criticized its ecosystem. It wouldn't be my first pick either. I was just making conversation that there are other options. And AFAIK Symmetry Investments is that dogfood startup.
WuxiFingerHold 2y ago
Thanks for the link. I'm not fully convinced by Anders answer. C# has records, first class functions, structs, span. Much control and I'd say more than Go. I'd even say C# is much closer to TS than Go is. You can use records for the data structures. The only little annoyance is that you need to write the functions as static methods. So an argument for easy translation would lead to C#. Also, C# has advantages over Go, e.g. null safety. Sure, AOT is not as mature in C# but is this reason enough to be a show stopper? It seems there're other reasons Anders don't want to address publicly. Maybe as simple reasons as "Go is 10 times easier to pick up than C#" and "language features don't matter when the project matters". Those would indeed hurt the image of C# and Anders obviously don't want that. But I don't see it as big drama.
- mexicocitinluez 2y ago
  I dont think there are other reasons. The side-by-sides that show how Go code is closer to the current TS code (visually) than C# would be are pretty compelling. He made it pretty clear they're "porting" not rewriting.
  - WuxiFingerHold 2y ago
    After reading the long Github thread, I think you're right. It's probably just as simple as "what is the easiest way to copy our TS code 1:1 to a faster language". And this case Go wins due to its simplicity.
    - mexicocitinluez 2y ago
      What's funny is that while I understood a chunk about why that made that decision, a ton of things they were talking about went over my head. But then we they showed the side-by-side, I was like "Well that makes sense".
- saturn_vk 2y ago
  > You can use records for the data structures. The only little annoyance is that you need to write the functions as static methods. So an argument for easy translation would lead to C#. Also, C# has advantages over Go, e.g. null safety. Wouldn't these things be useful if you are making an actual compiler, that would run TS? Since in this case, the runtime is JS, I don't think any of these things would get any usage, unless they are used in the existing transpiler.
Rapzid 2y ago
Sounds like C# was too late with dictionary collection expressions.

vessenes 2y ago

It’s a political anti-benefit in most of the open-source world. And C# is not considered a high quality runtime once you leave Windows.

fabian2k 2y ago
Modern C# (.NET Core and newer) works perfectly fine on Linux.
electroly 2y ago
This is Anders Hejlsberg, the creator of C#, working on a politically important project at Microsoft. That's what I mean by political benefit. The larger open source world doesn't matter for this decision which is why this is a simple announcement of an internal Microsoft decision rather than an invitation for comments ahead of time.
- vessenes 2y ago
  I’m sure Microsoft’s strategy department would disagree with you. As a c# devotee - I get that you’re upset. And you may want to update your priors on where c# sits in Microsoft’s current world. But I think it’s a mistake to imagine this isn’t a well reasoned decision.
  - electroly 2y ago
    They can disagree if they want but as a career-long Microsoft developer they can't fool me that easily. I'm not even complaining, I'm just stating a fact that high-level steering decisions like this are made in Teams meetings between Microsoft employees, not in open discussion with the community. It's the same in .NET, which is a very open source project whose highest-level decisions are, nonetheless, made in Teams meetings between Microsoft employees and then announced to the public. I'm fine with this but let's not kid ourselves about it. That said, I must have misstated my opinion if it seems like I didn't think they have a good reason. This is Anders Hejlsberg. The guy is a genius; he definitely has a good reason. They just didn't say what it is in this blog post (but did elsewhere in a podcast video linked in the HN thread).

jodrellblank 2y ago

> "given that C# was famously created by the guy writing the blog post" What is this logic? "You worked on C# years ago so you must use C# for everything"? "You must dictate C# to every team you lead forever, no matter what skills they have"? "You must uphold a dogma that C# is the best language for everything, because you touched it last"? Why aren't you using this logic to argue that they should use Delphi or TurboPascal because Anders Hejlsberg created those? Because there is no logic; the person who created hammers doesn't have to use hammers to solve every problem.

uticus 2y ago
Yes, but C# is the Microsoft language, and I would say TypeScript is 2nd place Microsoft language (sorry F# folks - in terms of popularity not objective greatness of course). So it's not just that the lead architect of C# is involved in the TypeScript changes. It's also that this is under the same roof and the same sign hangs on the building outside for both languages. If Ford made a car and powered it with a Chevy engine, wouldn't you be curious what was going on also?
- jay_kyburz 2y ago
  It's a bad look for both C# and TypeScript. Anybody starting a new code base now would be looking for ways to avoid both and jump right to Go.
  - bdangubic 2y ago
    if I had to use Go I’d change my career and go do some gardening :)
    - ricardobeat 2y ago
      I'd probably have said the same 5 years ago, it's surprising how easy you change sides once you actually use it in a team.
      - 2y ago

almosthere 2y ago

.NET executables requires a runtime environment to be installed. Go executables do not. TSC is installed in too many places for that burden to be placed all of a sudden. It is the same reason why Java has had a complicated acceptance history too. It's fine in the places that it is pre-installed, but no where else. Node/React/Typescript developers do not want to install .net all of a sudden. If you react that poorly, pretend they decided they decided to write it in Java and ask if you think Node/React/Typescript developers WANT to install Java.

afavour 2y ago
FYI this hasn’t been the case with C# for a very long time now.
vips7L 2y ago
.NET has been able to build a self contained single file executable for both the JIT and AOT target for a quite some time. Java also does not require the user to install a runtime. JLink and JPackage have both been around for a long time.
- yakz 2y ago
  Maybe some other runtimes do this or it has been changed, but in the past self-contained singe-file .NET deployment just meant that it rolled all the files up during publishing and when you run it, it extracted them to a folder. Not really like a single statically linked executable.
  - vips7L 2y ago
    It hasn't done that in years.
  - webprofusion 2y ago
    You can indeed produce a compiled native executable with minimal bloat: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/deploying/native-aot/ https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/core/deploying/nati...

cryptonector 2y ago

GP's answer is a great answer to why Go instead of Rust, which u/no_wizard asked about. And the answer to that boils down to the need to traverse data structures in ways which Rust makes difficult, and the simplicity of a GC.

nimchimpsky 2y ago
[dead]

WD-42 2y ago

[flagged]

_bin_ 2y ago
C# is a decently-designed language, but its first principles are being microsoft-y and java-y, which are perhaps two of my least favorite principles. that aside, i've worked on C# backends deployed to lots of linux boxes and it's not really second-rate these days.
debugnik 2y ago
Microsoft's implementation has been cross platform for almost a decade now. You're way too late to the Mono FUD party.
- WD-42 2y ago
  Almost a decade? Amazing. Considering go has been cross platform since its inception almost twice as long as that, rust too, it’s no wonder developer mindshare is elsewhere.

whattidywhat 2y ago

I'm not saying this to start a language war but. Look at the cognitive complexity and tooling complexity involved in a c# project. Seriously, every speed bump you hit in your ide think about how many pieces of knowledge you assemble to solve it. Similarly think about the overhead in designing both the software and tests. Think about cross platform builds and the tooling required to stand up ops infrastructure. Measure the compilation time. Think about the impedance mismatch between ts and c#. Compare that to go. It's not even close. I see comments bickering about the size of executable files... Almost no major product cares about that within order of magnitude. Go is a wild choice to write a compiler in. Literally in my top 10 things I never want to do. Everything else about it drove them to do it.