4 ms·

> There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that you can do in Go that you can not do via libraries in Java Agreed, however there are things I really don't want to

by meaty 14y ago

> There is nothing, absolutely nothing, that you can do in Go that you can not do via libraries in Java Agreed, however there are things I really don't want to do in Java as even using the wonderful selection of libraries and tooling out there they are like sandpapering your face and repeatedly ramming it into a salt bath. By the time I've set up Eclipse, Maven, Jetty/Glassfish and a reasonable framework, I could have actually finished the task in Go. To be 100% honest, I could probably do it whilst maven is puking in the Eclipse log window. vim gofile.go go run gofile.go That is practical programming.

eternalban 14y ago
Go is excellent for prototyping ideas, which is why it is my "language of choice" at the moment. But your argument falls flat when considering deploying "large scale" systems, which have multiple dimensions of ceremony before hitting production.
- meaty 14y ago
  I disagree. I build very large scale systems. I think that large scale systems should be constructed out of small components which are loosely coupled distributed components with strong contracts between them. These components are ideal for encapsulating in small standalone go components.
  - eternalban 14y ago
    That is a viable approach and I share your affinity for that type of architecture, but insisting that it is the only way to build large scale systems is not reasonable. In real life, for example, you have clients and clients have their preferences or requirements or existing systems. And system architects also like having choices. And speaking of choice in context of massively concurrent CSP systems, Erlang is (as of now) the superior choice for that sort of system architecture.
    - meaty 14y ago
      I agree. I'm not suggesting that it's the only way, but a suitable and generally successful way. Erlang is ok, but the staff don't scale. Have you tried finding Erlang programmers?
      - eternalban 14y ago
        > [Erlang] doesn't scale. http://basho.com/products/riak-overview/ http://basho.com/products/riak-overview/ I think you mean Erlang's strict CSP -- share nothing -- is not as efficient as shared memory systems such as Go. That is a fact and by design it is a feature and not a bug. Nine 9s: http://pragprog.com/articles/erlang http://pragprog.com/articles/erlang > Have you tried finding Erlang programmers? Go looks easy but it is a subtle language. Brad F. writes a server and it performs. Mr. X writes one and it crawls. Go figure.
        meaty 14y ago
        Erlang doesn't scale as in Erlang doesn't scale to larger projects when you require lots of people working on them. I doubt we could put our 2MLOC trading platform into Erlang and get away with it. It certainly scales from a technology point of view. Go is simple enough to allow Mr X's code to go through a review by Brad F until Mr X gets the point.

by meaty 14y ago

eternalban 14y ago

Go is excellent for prototyping ideas, which is why it is my "language of choice" at the moment. But your argument falls flat when considering deploying "large scale" systems, which have multiple dimensions of ceremony before hitting production.

meaty 14y ago
I disagree. I build very large scale systems. I think that large scale systems should be constructed out of small components which are loosely coupled distributed components with strong contracts between them. These components are ideal for encapsulating in small standalone go components.
- eternalban 14y ago
  That is a viable approach and I share your affinity for that type of architecture, but insisting that it is the only way to build large scale systems is not reasonable. In real life, for example, you have clients and clients have their preferences or requirements or existing systems. And system architects also like having choices. And speaking of choice in context of massively concurrent CSP systems, Erlang is (as of now) the superior choice for that sort of system architecture.
  - meaty 14y ago
    I agree. I'm not suggesting that it's the only way, but a suitable and generally successful way. Erlang is ok, but the staff don't scale. Have you tried finding Erlang programmers?
    - eternalban 14y ago
      > [Erlang] doesn't scale. http://basho.com/products/riak-overview/ http://basho.com/products/riak-overview/ I think you mean Erlang's strict CSP -- share nothing -- is not as efficient as shared memory systems such as Go. That is a fact and by design it is a feature and not a bug. Nine 9s: http://pragprog.com/articles/erlang http://pragprog.com/articles/erlang > Have you tried finding Erlang programmers? Go looks easy but it is a subtle language. Brad F. writes a server and it performs. Mr. X writes one and it crawls. Go figure.
      - meaty 14y ago
        Erlang doesn't scale as in Erlang doesn't scale to larger projects when you require lots of people working on them. I doubt we could put our 2MLOC trading platform into Erlang and get away with it. It certainly scales from a technology point of view. Go is simple enough to allow Mr X's code to go through a review by Brad F until Mr X gets the point.