5 ms·

> So we are pleased to see Go being used for the job it was designed for, This sounds a bit like revisionism. Rob Pike made it clear that the initial motivatio

by laureny 13y ago

> So we are pleased to see Go being used for the job it was designed for, This sounds a bit like revisionism. Rob Pike made it clear that the initial motivation for Go was the slowness of the C++ compilation. Go was clearly initially targeted at replacing C++ and it's not being successful in that area at all. Personally, I think it will grab a decent amount of Ruby and Python programmers but it won't go much further than that.

axaxs 13y ago
I see that as an obvious mistake. C++ is so different than C, and I imagine most C purists despite it. Go created a smarter C, and presented it as the solution. The problem though is that C++ people likely aren't C purists to begin with, or that C purists are too into C. Compounded by those who only drop to C when needed, you begin to see why it failed initially in this segment. I do think it will continue to gain adoption, but linux is such a firm C membership club that it will either be painfully slow, or else require Go to play nicer with C.
- pcwalton 13y ago
  > C++ is so different than C, and I imagine most C purists despite it. Go created a smarter C, and presented it as the solution. I think it has nothing to do with the difference between C and C++ and everything to do with the reasons why people use C and C++: extreme performance, zero-cost abstractions, and integration with native libraries.
  - axaxs 13y ago
    I think you are right, and I tried to convey that in my last two sentences but in retrospect worded it poorly. I guess what I was trying to say there is that people who "drop to C"(or for that matter, start in C) for performance reasons or compatibility reasons aren't going to consider a slower and less integrated language. This is probably most people, I'm not sure many people write everything in C regardless of task anymore(such as say, webapps). I still think the initial part stands. C and C++ are not visually or mentally similar languages. Go is very similar to C in logic, so I'm not sure why it was expected that C++ people would flock to it(unless of course they weren't happy with C++, which brings us back to the first condition in that they were probably only using it for performance).
- Roboprog 13y ago
  Go is more like a Modula (Algol???) variant with curly braces. Mapping interfaces onto a funky function/routine call syntax (an optional parameter in a second set of parens for the "receiver"), and maintaining stack frames around a procedural type reference (closure) after the enclosing scope returns, are about the only new tricks.
- Roboprog 13y ago
  The Go team rightly point out that C++ is needlessly complicated. That is why I despise C++. (I guess I was spoiled by doing Borland ObjectPascal first, as well) Go provides most of the benefits of the JVM without being as much of a memory hog. Thus, it makes it a nice replacement for somebody who would rather use Pascal/Modula than C++. (Java originally was seen by me as a Pascal in C++ clothing for Unix)
  - pjmlp 13y ago
    Funny, I have a similar background, but I despise C instead. C++ gives me back stronger type and enough power to have a safer language than C can ever offer. I also jumped into Java when it appeared for the same reason. Until Go compilers provide support for generics and dynamic loading, I rather use C++1y, D or Rust.
Roboprog 13y ago
I like Go, but it's too bad they didn't simply enhance FreePascal, if their main concern was compilation speed. Was it just a "Bell Labs" ego concern? Or, was adding garbage collection that big a need? GC of course makes Go quite different from C++, so they should not be surprised if some "speed demons" refuse to convert over. (note that I hate C++, but can see the point of this aspect)
enneff 13y ago
> Go was clearly initially targeted at replacing C++ and it's not being successful in that area at all. This is a strong overstatement. It's true that we thought more C++ programmers would be into Go, but it's also true that there more than a few teams at Google that have moved from C++ to Go, or chosen to use Go instead of C++ for new projects. It's not a black and white thing; there is no archetypal C++ programmer that does or does not like Go. To reiterate: Go was designed for systems programming. People are using Go for systems programming. On top of that, there are many others using Go for other purposes. We're pretty thrilled about this.

by laureny 13y ago

axaxs 13y ago

I see that as an obvious mistake. C++ is so different than C, and I imagine most C purists despite it. Go created a smarter C, and presented it as the solution. The problem though is that C++ people likely aren't C purists to begin with, or that C purists are too into C. Compounded by those who only drop to C when needed, you begin to see why it failed initially in this segment. I do think it will continue to gain adoption, but linux is such a firm C membership club that it will either be painfully slow, or else require Go to play nicer with C.

pcwalton 13y ago
> C++ is so different than C, and I imagine most C purists despite it. Go created a smarter C, and presented it as the solution. I think it has nothing to do with the difference between C and C++ and everything to do with the reasons why people use C and C++: extreme performance, zero-cost abstractions, and integration with native libraries.
- axaxs 13y ago
  I think you are right, and I tried to convey that in my last two sentences but in retrospect worded it poorly. I guess what I was trying to say there is that people who "drop to C"(or for that matter, start in C) for performance reasons or compatibility reasons aren't going to consider a slower and less integrated language. This is probably most people, I'm not sure many people write everything in C regardless of task anymore(such as say, webapps). I still think the initial part stands. C and C++ are not visually or mentally similar languages. Go is very similar to C in logic, so I'm not sure why it was expected that C++ people would flock to it(unless of course they weren't happy with C++, which brings us back to the first condition in that they were probably only using it for performance).
Roboprog 13y ago
Go is more like a Modula (Algol???) variant with curly braces. Mapping interfaces onto a funky function/routine call syntax (an optional parameter in a second set of parens for the "receiver"), and maintaining stack frames around a procedural type reference (closure) after the enclosing scope returns, are about the only new tricks.
Roboprog 13y ago
The Go team rightly point out that C++ is needlessly complicated. That is why I despise C++. (I guess I was spoiled by doing Borland ObjectPascal first, as well) Go provides most of the benefits of the JVM without being as much of a memory hog. Thus, it makes it a nice replacement for somebody who would rather use Pascal/Modula than C++. (Java originally was seen by me as a Pascal in C++ clothing for Unix)
- pjmlp 13y ago
  Funny, I have a similar background, but I despise C instead. C++ gives me back stronger type and enough power to have a safer language than C can ever offer. I also jumped into Java when it appeared for the same reason. Until Go compilers provide support for generics and dynamic loading, I rather use C++1y, D or Rust.

Roboprog 13y ago

I like Go, but it's too bad they didn't simply enhance FreePascal, if their main concern was compilation speed. Was it just a "Bell Labs" ego concern? Or, was adding garbage collection that big a need? GC of course makes Go quite different from C++, so they should not be surprised if some "speed demons" refuse to convert over. (note that I hate C++, but can see the point of this aspect)

enneff 13y ago

> Go was clearly initially targeted at replacing C++ and it's not being successful in that area at all. This is a strong overstatement. It's true that we thought more C++ programmers would be into Go, but it's also true that there more than a few teams at Google that have moved from C++ to Go, or chosen to use Go instead of C++ for new projects. It's not a black and white thing; there is no archetypal C++ programmer that does or does not like Go. To reiterate: Go was designed for systems programming. People are using Go for systems programming. On top of that, there are many others using Go for other purposes. We're pretty thrilled about this.