3 ms·
I guess this also means that Go wouldn't have the success it has if it wasn't built and used by a group of engineers who are used to the pitfalls of complexity
by ithkuil 13y ago
I guess this also means that Go wouldn't have the success it has if it wasn't built and used by a group of engineers who are used to the pitfalls of complexity and value tools that help you to get the job done and yet produce maintainable code.
This also means that it's not a good fit for everybody. It's certainly less exciting than most of the things that you find around; that's ok, that's the point. Less focus on the language, less focus on the magic and more focus on what you do with it.
- pjmlp 13y agoThe gold question is, would anyone care if the same engineers would be doing this work in another company?
- ithkuil 13y agoI believe it would, if the other company obeys to this constrains: * has a very large number of top-notch/rock star engineers and this fact is widely publicised * has a history of producing products with a very good quality (at least in the area under discussion, in this case reliability, performance and scalability) * has been on the market and successful for a long period of time * engineer opinion within the company carries weight and rules are not blindly dictated from above. There are many other good companies, hiring extremely bright people. However, it's interesting to learn about what arises from the requirements of a company with the above listed characteristics. I'm sure some people will just cargo cult everything googly, but there are also those who have a genuine interest and know when to apply those things if they make sense for them.