8 ms·

This is the arrogance of language designers with limited experience developing real-world applications. Maybe it works as a replacement for C building low level

This is the arrogance of language designers with limited experience developing real-world applications. Maybe it works as a replacement for C building low level apps, but it won't fly in enterprise codebases.

9rx 2y ago
Go recognizes the arrogance of language designers (Pike is a team member, so it was hard for such a thing to go unnoticed!), hence why they put their theories to the real-world test instead of just guessing. Most languages seem to pack in feature after feature because some random nobody on the internet thought it would be a good idea without ever seeing if their thought could be proven as a good one, but Go tries to actually show it first. Which is also why it draws so much ire. It speaks the truths developers don't like to admit.
- stickfigure 2y ago
  With which million line enterprise codebase did they real-world test this? They test with their community and get the biases of their community. Don't pretend it's more than that.
  - 9rx 2y ago
    "Enterprise" being a euphemism for low-quality developers who don't know how to write quality software (the sloppy developers referenced in an earlier comment)? Perhaps not. Go does seem to scare off anyone who relies on crutches to work around shoddy work and inability. But it doesn't really matter which codebases they used, does it? Replication efforts will reveal anything they got wrong. No need to make guesses.
    - stickfigure 2y ago
      "Enterprise" is a euphemism for line of business software that makes billions of dollars. Ie, the stuff that runs the real world.
      - 9rx 2y ago
        "Enterprise" traditionally refers to code that is full of bad practices. Like, when Java was all the rage, FooFactoryBuilderFactory was the embolism of enterprise. In other words, where sloppy developers are found. Glad we were able to clear up that isn't what you meant. So you are meaning – with respect to the code – the same as all other software? What, then, is "enterprise" trying to add? It is not like you would write code that makes billions any differently than you would a code that makes a dollar.
      - sethammons 2y ago
        I have written, and continue to write at another org, Go that drives line of business software that makes billions of dollars and runs the real world. Check a random email you have and if you see a header X-EID, it was processed with Go.
        stickfigure 2y ago
        Please tell me about the scientific study relating to the utility of stack traces that was run in your codebase.
        9rx 2y ago
        Individual codebases can already include stack traces as they see fit, so studying only a single codebase would be rather pointless. If an individual codebase benefits from stack traces, it will use them! The study looked at how often they were used to determine if it would be a useful default. It found, by looking at many different projects that had stack traces included by default, that it would not be useful to include by default. Especially in light of the cost of inclusion. Adding stack traces is definitely not free.

9rx 2y ago

Go recognizes the arrogance of language designers (Pike is a team member, so it was hard for such a thing to go unnoticed!), hence why they put their theories to the real-world test instead of just guessing. Most languages seem to pack in feature after feature because some random nobody on the internet thought it would be a good idea without ever seeing if their thought could be proven as a good one, but Go tries to actually show it first. Which is also why it draws so much ire. It speaks the truths developers don't like to admit.

stickfigure 2y ago
With which million line enterprise codebase did they real-world test this? They test with their community and get the biases of their community. Don't pretend it's more than that.
- 9rx 2y ago
  "Enterprise" being a euphemism for low-quality developers who don't know how to write quality software (the sloppy developers referenced in an earlier comment)? Perhaps not. Go does seem to scare off anyone who relies on crutches to work around shoddy work and inability. But it doesn't really matter which codebases they used, does it? Replication efforts will reveal anything they got wrong. No need to make guesses.
  - stickfigure 2y ago
    "Enterprise" is a euphemism for line of business software that makes billions of dollars. Ie, the stuff that runs the real world.
    - 9rx 2y ago
      "Enterprise" traditionally refers to code that is full of bad practices. Like, when Java was all the rage, FooFactoryBuilderFactory was the embolism of enterprise. In other words, where sloppy developers are found. Glad we were able to clear up that isn't what you meant. So you are meaning – with respect to the code – the same as all other software? What, then, is "enterprise" trying to add? It is not like you would write code that makes billions any differently than you would a code that makes a dollar.
    - sethammons 2y ago
      I have written, and continue to write at another org, Go that drives line of business software that makes billions of dollars and runs the real world. Check a random email you have and if you see a header X-EID, it was processed with Go.
      - stickfigure 2y ago
        Please tell me about the scientific study relating to the utility of stack traces that was run in your codebase.
        9rx 2y ago
        Individual codebases can already include stack traces as they see fit, so studying only a single codebase would be rather pointless. If an individual codebase benefits from stack traces, it will use them! The study looked at how often they were used to determine if it would be a useful default. It found, by looking at many different projects that had stack traces included by default, that it would not be useful to include by default. Especially in light of the cost of inclusion. Adding stack traces is definitely not free.