6 ms·

When app(lication)s meant desktop apps, most of us used C as an app dev language. Over the years, the platform changed and most app developers switched to Java

by SiVal 13y ago

When app(lication)s meant desktop apps, most of us used C as an app dev language. Over the years, the platform changed and most app developers switched to Java and C# and, more recently, to Python and Ruby. Those who still use C these days mostly use it to deal with unusually demanding constraints (performance, memory, etc.) They use C when only C will do, which usually is not for apps. C is not the default app programming language; it's a special-purpose language of sorts. Go is not very competitive with C at what people mostly use C for these days: tightest constraints and maximum customization. Go is very competitive with Python (& Ruby), though, as a high-productivity app development language, being almost as productive as those two but with much higher performance, lower memory requirements, and no need to install a big runtime. It's biggest shortcoming, vis-a-vis Py & Ruby, is the immaturity of its environment (libraries, toolchains, web frameworks, etc) due to its relative newness. As that changes, many will switch from P&R to Go, but fewer will switch from C to Go, because most who don't absolutely need C have already switched away from it.

jlgreco 13y ago
I fear I was unclear; I was not advocating using Go in the place of C. Rather I now using Go in the place of Python, in situations where C was not appropriate (traditionally my hobby projects have been something C is appropriate for, or something that Python is appropriate for).
- SiVal 13y ago
  No, you were clear, and I seem to be thinking the same way your are. Mine was a more general comment on the common observation that Go is pulling more people away from Python than away from C. App developers who don't need the bit-by-bit customization power of C have already left it for more productive languages such as Python. Those who continue to use C are those who really need the bit-by-bit customization that C provides but Go and Python don't. Those who already left C for the huge productivity boost offered by Python can get back a lot of the performance and size advantages they left behind without giving up much of the productivity by switching to Go. That's an attractive option.
pjmlp 13y ago
What I always find interesting is that the Python and Ruby developers are willing to loose abstraction power to delve down in Go, while they would be able to keep it if they would move to PyPy, JVM/.NET based languages or FP languages with native compilers instead.
- coldtea 13y ago
  Yes, but in return they get something more mature than PyPy, something with less hassle that bringing along a VM (JVM/.NET), and something less alien and marginal than FP languages with native compilers. They might not get the best technical experience, but they DO get: 1) mostly imperative (and most LIKE it that way), 2) nice concurrency support, 3) a lot of niceties (first class functions, implicit interfaces, maps, etc), 4) quite full batteries included, 5) lots of other kids using it 6) regular success posts on HN 7) nice, and mostly predictable, reasoning about speed and memory
  - pjmlp 13y ago
    > Yes, but in return they get something more mature than PyPy, something with less hassle that bringing along a VM (JVM/.NET), and something less alien and marginal than FP languages with native compilers. There are commercial native compilers for Java and .NET if you are willing to pay for them. Language != Implementation As for what one gets, 1) Offered by C++, JVM, .NET languages, D, Rust, ... 2) Scala, Haskell, OCaml, F#, D, Rust, Erlang, .... 3) Almost any modern language with exception of C and Java. 4) Java and .NET have more batteries 5) Yes, because big boys have better tools 6) Fortune 500 companies don't use languages based on HN posts 7) Tooling still behind what big boys use for other languages
    - MetaCosm 13y ago
      You kinda made his point for him didn't you? He said all these are benefits of Go, and you pointed out he would need to use lots of different languages to get them elsewhere. Notice the lack of overlap in your own points(1-4), that right there is the crux of the issue. Beyond that, on (5) I simply respond... what? I think you are flat out wrong about (6) and how they pick languages (I contract for them), they "hear" node.js is super fast and will double output and want to use it. (7) is part of what Go was designed to enable, building tools for it is AWESOME (Go AST!). If anything you made a killer post, maybe just not for the reasons you think.

by SiVal 13y ago

jlgreco 13y ago

I fear I was unclear; I was not advocating using Go in the place of C. Rather I now using Go in the place of Python, in situations where C was not appropriate (traditionally my hobby projects have been something C is appropriate for, or something that Python is appropriate for).

SiVal 13y ago
No, you were clear, and I seem to be thinking the same way your are. Mine was a more general comment on the common observation that Go is pulling more people away from Python than away from C. App developers who don't need the bit-by-bit customization power of C have already left it for more productive languages such as Python. Those who continue to use C are those who really need the bit-by-bit customization that C provides but Go and Python don't. Those who already left C for the huge productivity boost offered by Python can get back a lot of the performance and size advantages they left behind without giving up much of the productivity by switching to Go. That's an attractive option.

pjmlp 13y ago

What I always find interesting is that the Python and Ruby developers are willing to loose abstraction power to delve down in Go, while they would be able to keep it if they would move to PyPy, JVM/.NET based languages or FP languages with native compilers instead.

coldtea 13y ago
Yes, but in return they get something more mature than PyPy, something with less hassle that bringing along a VM (JVM/.NET), and something less alien and marginal than FP languages with native compilers. They might not get the best technical experience, but they DO get: 1) mostly imperative (and most LIKE it that way), 2) nice concurrency support, 3) a lot of niceties (first class functions, implicit interfaces, maps, etc), 4) quite full batteries included, 5) lots of other kids using it 6) regular success posts on HN 7) nice, and mostly predictable, reasoning about speed and memory
- pjmlp 13y ago
  > Yes, but in return they get something more mature than PyPy, something with less hassle that bringing along a VM (JVM/.NET), and something less alien and marginal than FP languages with native compilers. There are commercial native compilers for Java and .NET if you are willing to pay for them. Language != Implementation As for what one gets, 1) Offered by C++, JVM, .NET languages, D, Rust, ... 2) Scala, Haskell, OCaml, F#, D, Rust, Erlang, .... 3) Almost any modern language with exception of C and Java. 4) Java and .NET have more batteries 5) Yes, because big boys have better tools 6) Fortune 500 companies don't use languages based on HN posts 7) Tooling still behind what big boys use for other languages
  - MetaCosm 13y ago
    You kinda made his point for him didn't you? He said all these are benefits of Go, and you pointed out he would need to use lots of different languages to get them elsewhere. Notice the lack of overlap in your own points(1-4), that right there is the crux of the issue. Beyond that, on (5) I simply respond... what? I think you are flat out wrong about (6) and how they pick languages (I contract for them), they "hear" node.js is super fast and will double output and want to use it. (7) is part of what Go was designed to enable, building tools for it is AWESOME (Go AST!). If anything you made a killer post, maybe just not for the reasons you think.