4 ms·

If you "like C", then Go is a really poor substitute, because Go doesn't allow one to juggle with memory like what people are normally doing in C. Rust is not c

If you "like C", then Go is a really poor substitute, because Go doesn't allow one to juggle with memory like what people are normally doing in C. Rust is not comparable with Go, because Go relies on a non-optional GC, a difference that changes everything, Go being in the same league as the JVM, except that the JVM is better at almost everything, like garbage collectors, tools and libraries available, multiple languages etc. The JVM is even better at concurrency. Go in my opinion is the best proof that our industry is fashion driven.

wtf_is_up 12y ago
>Go in my opinion is the best proof that our industry is fashion driven. It's not though. What is fashionable about Go? Most testimonies I've seen state solid reasons for choosing it. Nobody claims it to be a marvelous language like Haskell. It's a simple language that's easy to pick up, implement an idea, and deploy. Much like python, but with much greater performance. I don't see what fashion has to do with it.
- lmm 12y ago
  OCaml offered the same proposition for 10+ years. No-one was interested. Oddly enough, now that Go and Rust are getting attention, people seem to also be taking a second look at OCaml. What's that, if not fashion?
  - orbifold 12y ago
    While Ocaml is a really nice language it doesn't have a runtime well suited for fine grained concurrency or multi processors, at least at the moment. If you compare standard libraries, commercially backed languages have also far more of the tedious groundwork for "real world" applications done for you. Of course depending on your project this might be relevant or not.
  - renox 12y ago
    Ada & Rust show the same thing: the computer world is a fashion industry..
  - jerf 12y ago
    "OCaml offered the same proposition for 10+ years." No, it didn't. In addition to the already-observed point that Go's concurrency story has always been better than OCaml's, Go also offers it to you in an Algol-esque syntax. It isn't C, but if you know C the differences are dialectal, whereas OCaml is from the ML tradition and is radically different. ML is the language family probably most distant from C in current medium-scale usage. I don't like or celebrate this fact, but it seems that broad-scale success right now requires that you be an Algol-descended syntax.
    - the_why_of_y 12y ago
      Allow me to summarize your post as "OCaml syntax is not and never was fashionable", thus proving the OP's point :)
billsossoon 12y ago
You can still "like C" without needing to juggle memory (similarly, you can need to juggle memory and hate C). The core Go team is likely evidence of that: they created a language that, in some sense, retains the spirit of C and yet they felt that manual memory management was unnecessary for the problems they're now solving. > Go in my opinion is the best proof that our industry is fashion driven. Go itself isn't flashy or trendy or fashionable. It doesn't introduce exciting new concepts. It's as notable for what it doesn't include as what it does include. It is, in my experience, an extremely practical and pragmatic language. Saying it's proof of a fashion-driven industry is like saying the Honda Accord is proof that the automobile industry is fashion driven. I believe some of the initial interest in Go was due to its newness and its affiliation with Google. But traffic-baiting bloggers have moved on to the next thing, as have programmers who are more focused on the process of programming (i.e., "I want the act of programming to be fun") than the results. I think it's settling into a comfortable role as a practical choice for teams who want to get work done.
abiox 12y ago
and ruby/rails didn't prove this? with all those mustachio'd hipsters?

wtf_is_up 12y ago

>Go in my opinion is the best proof that our industry is fashion driven. It's not though. What is fashionable about Go? Most testimonies I've seen state solid reasons for choosing it. Nobody claims it to be a marvelous language like Haskell. It's a simple language that's easy to pick up, implement an idea, and deploy. Much like python, but with much greater performance. I don't see what fashion has to do with it.

lmm 12y ago
OCaml offered the same proposition for 10+ years. No-one was interested. Oddly enough, now that Go and Rust are getting attention, people seem to also be taking a second look at OCaml. What's that, if not fashion?
- orbifold 12y ago
  While Ocaml is a really nice language it doesn't have a runtime well suited for fine grained concurrency or multi processors, at least at the moment. If you compare standard libraries, commercially backed languages have also far more of the tedious groundwork for "real world" applications done for you. Of course depending on your project this might be relevant or not.
- renox 12y ago
  Ada & Rust show the same thing: the computer world is a fashion industry..
- jerf 12y ago
  "OCaml offered the same proposition for 10+ years." No, it didn't. In addition to the already-observed point that Go's concurrency story has always been better than OCaml's, Go also offers it to you in an Algol-esque syntax. It isn't C, but if you know C the differences are dialectal, whereas OCaml is from the ML tradition and is radically different. ML is the language family probably most distant from C in current medium-scale usage. I don't like or celebrate this fact, but it seems that broad-scale success right now requires that you be an Algol-descended syntax.
  - the_why_of_y 12y ago
    Allow me to summarize your post as "OCaml syntax is not and never was fashionable", thus proving the OP's point :)

billsossoon 12y ago

You can still "like C" without needing to juggle memory (similarly, you can need to juggle memory and hate C). The core Go team is likely evidence of that: they created a language that, in some sense, retains the spirit of C and yet they felt that manual memory management was unnecessary for the problems they're now solving. > Go in my opinion is the best proof that our industry is fashion driven. Go itself isn't flashy or trendy or fashionable. It doesn't introduce exciting new concepts. It's as notable for what it doesn't include as what it does include. It is, in my experience, an extremely practical and pragmatic language. Saying it's proof of a fashion-driven industry is like saying the Honda Accord is proof that the automobile industry is fashion driven. I believe some of the initial interest in Go was due to its newness and its affiliation with Google. But traffic-baiting bloggers have moved on to the next thing, as have programmers who are more focused on the process of programming (i.e., "I want the act of programming to be fun") than the results. I think it's settling into a comfortable role as a practical choice for teams who want to get work done.

abiox 12y ago

and ruby/rails didn't prove this? with all those mustachio'd hipsters?