4 ms·

To be clear: a broken product that was actively annoying users and that no one knew how or had energy to fix, got fixed by a Go dev, and you are saying that is

• coldtea 14y ago
  >To be clear: a broken product that was actively annoying users and that no one knew how or had energy to fix, got fixed by a Go dev, and you are saying that is NOT a point in Go's favor? Sure is a point in Go's favor. It means it can be used to solve an actual problem in a large company. But what I'm saying is it's not that big of a deal as it may seem to some: it's not like they used Go in some highly critical for them infrastructure or important new project. On the contrary: they used it at so low a priority project, that it was abandoned and left to rot before somebody volunteered (was not even asked!) to do the rewrite. (And, no, it was not abandoned because it's C++ codebase meant it could not be fixed -- after all it could be redone from scratch in C++ or Java, as it was redone from scratch in Go. It was merely due to neglect). So, my point it, this story is not a "investing internally in the language big time" thing, but rather baby steps.
  • Evbn 14y ago
    You say the big company is not investing in a big way, I see a small team of revolutionaries rescuing a behemoth from crushing itself under its own weight. :-)