4 ms·

Very familiar to me from c API, at least for file handling. But for some reason I don't get what Go has that rust hasn't for a "better c". (Or is go not meant f

Very familiar to me from c API, at least for file handling. But for some reason I don't get what Go has that rust hasn't for a "better c". (Or is go not meant for system programming and it's apples to oranges?) In any case if I need to do some machine learning, web development or parallel / distributed computing then Scala will come to mind before trying to pick Go. I rather have a bloat of features than missing some (generics, I'm looking at you) I think that if you manage to be a good scala reader, and the type system makes sense to you, I simply can't think of any language that is small and focused as a benefit. This is why rust looks so appealing over go for me but I guess Go has different use cases. Can someone who is a scala developer and a go fan as well please explain to me what's the use case for me to try go for my next project? Honest curious question. tl;dr I code in Scala, like Rust, and see go is very popular and looking for a compelling argument from someone who knows all thee languages why I should try to give go a go.

exm 13y ago
Apples to oranges. You wouldn't want to use Go to write low level OS code, but come to write a web app or a command line utility, and you'll find that Go gets you going a lot faster than Rust. Both are really cool languages, targetting very different spots.
tbirdz 13y ago
I think for Go proponents it is more about what the language doesn't have. They like working with simpler languages. From what you've said that sort of thing doesn't appeal to you much, so I don't know if there's a real compelling need for you to try Go. Sure on the concurrent side Go has coroutines built into the language (go-routines), and there's something to be said about that, but there are are coroutine libraries for many other languages. But on the other hand Go isn't that hard to learn, certainly easier to get a grasp on than Rust or Scala, especially if you've worked with languages like c, c++, before. So I'd say go ahead and give Go a try. You may find you like it, and even if you don't it's not really that much of a time sink to pick up.
leaveyou 13y ago
>>I don't get what Go has that rust hasn't for a "better c"<< Go has a stable version. Go has a sane syntax and especially a sane approach to concurrency. Go is so simple you can learn it in less than a week. Go is already proven in several significant projects and having several recognized names (and unofficially a big brand behind it) helps with credibility. And so on.

exm 13y ago

Apples to oranges. You wouldn't want to use Go to write low level OS code, but come to write a web app or a command line utility, and you'll find that Go gets you going a lot faster than Rust. Both are really cool languages, targetting very different spots.

tbirdz 13y ago

I think for Go proponents it is more about what the language doesn't have. They like working with simpler languages. From what you've said that sort of thing doesn't appeal to you much, so I don't know if there's a real compelling need for you to try Go. Sure on the concurrent side Go has coroutines built into the language (go-routines), and there's something to be said about that, but there are are coroutine libraries for many other languages. But on the other hand Go isn't that hard to learn, certainly easier to get a grasp on than Rust or Scala, especially if you've worked with languages like c, c++, before. So I'd say go ahead and give Go a try. You may find you like it, and even if you don't it's not really that much of a time sink to pick up.

leaveyou 13y ago

>>I don't get what Go has that rust hasn't for a "better c"<< Go has a stable version. Go has a sane syntax and especially a sane approach to concurrency. Go is so simple you can learn it in less than a week. Go is already proven in several significant projects and having several recognized names (and unofficially a big brand behind it) helps with credibility. And so on.