7 ms·

Ask HN: Guido van Rossum's comment about go and scratch

24 points by zeynel1 17y ago

I just read this cryptic comment by Guido van Rossum on Twitter: http://twitter.com/gvanrossum "For all its flaws, I find Scratch (http://scratch.mit.edu/) a more interesting new language than Go (http://golang.org/)" Go is presented as a systems language for experts; scratch looks like it was designed for kids to learn programming. Can they be compared?

zeynel1 17y ago
http://scratch.mit.edu/ http://scratch.mit.edu/ http://golang.org/ http://golang.org/ http://twitter.com/gvanrossum http://twitter.com/gvanrossum
DanielStraight 17y ago
I don't read anything from Guido, so I don't know how he thinks, but I would interpret this as meaning that he doesn't see anything new and exciting in Go, but that he does in Scratch. That alone forms a comparison. A programming language that kids could actaully learn that would let them make web games that they could share with their friends definitely seems like it would be cool. What does Go offer that we can't already do?
- jimbokun 17y ago
  "What does Go offer that we can't already do?" Careful saying this around computer scientists, or you might get an earful about Turing machines, etc. But in any case, isn't Go meant to be a replacement for C and C++? At first glance, Scratch does not seem to fill that niche, so Guido's comment seems a non-sequitur to me.
  - csbrooks 17y ago
    >Careful saying this around computer scientists, or you might get an earful about Turing machines, etc. I think you mean "Turing completeness". Turing machines are a different thing.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    Careful saying this around computer scientists, or you might get an earful about Turing machines, etc. Scientists wouldn't say that. You're thinking of people who just learned x86 assembly yesterday, and are amazed that they can say "Hello world" in 10x the lines of any other language. "It's all the same!"
- stcredzero 17y ago
  Smalltalk was designed for kids. Kids actually program in it. http://www.squeakland.org/ http://www.squeakland.org/ But we (Smalltalkers) didn't get around to building and promoting a web sharing infrastructure for them, so good on the Scratch people. (Oh, and people have actually done systems programming in Smalltalk!)
dkersten 17y ago
I imagine he thinks that Scratch has more interesting and compelling features as a language that tried to do new things than Go does. I personally found Go to be very underwhelming and think that if it wasn't riding the Google wave (pun kinda intended), nobody would give it a second look. Theres simply more interesting languages out there (and, in its own way, Scratch is more interesting to me and seemingly to Guido. Hell, you can even do concurrent programming in Scratch :-P)
- tspiteri 17y ago
  I looked into Go more because of its authors than because of the "Google wave".
  - dkersten 17y ago
    Theres that too. To be honest, I'm a little disappointed. I expected them to come up with something amazingly awesome... Ah, we'll see how things pan out. But if it gains any traction, I still think its because of Google hype.
    - nearestneighbor 17y ago
      I expected them to come up with something amazingly awesome Why?! C and UNIX are from the worse-is-better camp.
      - dkersten 17y ago
        I actually agree with that statement. I dunno, I guess its because I used (and loved) C++ exclusively for a few years and I was hoping maybe they could make something similar - just better. But then when Go came out, reality hit :-)
    - eru 17y ago
      Which might not be too bad. Even it Go lags behind the cutting edge, it may still be an improvement on industry standards. Java was also heavily pushed by Sun --- and while I don't like it, I guess it's memory management is still an improvement over C++.
tamas 17y ago
I don't see it as cryptic. He just said "it's a toy". Also: oranges are way better than apples
- dkersten 17y ago
  And not just a "toy", but an "inferior toy". Also: no way! Bananas are better.
megamark16 17y ago
Perhaps what he's trying to say is that he's more interested in making programming more interesting and accessible for 1000 more children than he is in making an application able to scale up to 100,000 more users.
- andresmh 17y ago
  Broadening interest in programming is indeed one of the core ideas behind Scratch... and not to be picky but there are more than 90,000 people who have created and shared their Scratch project on scratch.mit.edu :)
acg 17y ago
I don't think they can be compared, he appears to be stating a preference (not dismissing go).
- brown9-2 17y ago
  Agreed. Sounds like he is just stating which happens to hold more of his interest currently.
b-man 17y ago
Scratch, Squeak and other similar environments follow the leading of Seymour Papert and his Logo language: low threshold and no ceiling For that they are different, and for that they are interesting.
Semiapies 17y ago
I don't see it as a cryptic remark; it does seem like a bit of an inkblot to some folks, though.

24 points by zeynel1 17y ago

zeynel1 17y ago

http://scratch.mit.edu/ http://scratch.mit.edu/ http://golang.org/ http://golang.org/ http://twitter.com/gvanrossum http://twitter.com/gvanrossum

DanielStraight 17y ago

I don't read anything from Guido, so I don't know how he thinks, but I would interpret this as meaning that he doesn't see anything new and exciting in Go, but that he does in Scratch. That alone forms a comparison. A programming language that kids could actaully learn that would let them make web games that they could share with their friends definitely seems like it would be cool. What does Go offer that we can't already do?

jimbokun 17y ago
"What does Go offer that we can't already do?" Careful saying this around computer scientists, or you might get an earful about Turing machines, etc. But in any case, isn't Go meant to be a replacement for C and C++? At first glance, Scratch does not seem to fill that niche, so Guido's comment seems a non-sequitur to me.
- csbrooks 17y ago
  >Careful saying this around computer scientists, or you might get an earful about Turing machines, etc. I think you mean "Turing completeness". Turing machines are a different thing.
- jrockway 17y ago
  Careful saying this around computer scientists, or you might get an earful about Turing machines, etc. Scientists wouldn't say that. You're thinking of people who just learned x86 assembly yesterday, and are amazed that they can say "Hello world" in 10x the lines of any other language. "It's all the same!"
stcredzero 17y ago
Smalltalk was designed for kids. Kids actually program in it. http://www.squeakland.org/ http://www.squeakland.org/ But we (Smalltalkers) didn't get around to building and promoting a web sharing infrastructure for them, so good on the Scratch people. (Oh, and people have actually done systems programming in Smalltalk!)

dkersten 17y ago

I imagine he thinks that Scratch has more interesting and compelling features as a language that tried to do new things than Go does. I personally found Go to be very underwhelming and think that if it wasn't riding the Google wave (pun kinda intended), nobody would give it a second look. Theres simply more interesting languages out there (and, in its own way, Scratch is more interesting to me and seemingly to Guido. Hell, you can even do concurrent programming in Scratch :-P)

tspiteri 17y ago
I looked into Go more because of its authors than because of the "Google wave".
- dkersten 17y ago
  Theres that too. To be honest, I'm a little disappointed. I expected them to come up with something amazingly awesome... Ah, we'll see how things pan out. But if it gains any traction, I still think its because of Google hype.
  - nearestneighbor 17y ago
    I expected them to come up with something amazingly awesome Why?! C and UNIX are from the worse-is-better camp.
    - dkersten 17y ago
      I actually agree with that statement. I dunno, I guess its because I used (and loved) C++ exclusively for a few years and I was hoping maybe they could make something similar - just better. But then when Go came out, reality hit :-)
  - eru 17y ago
    Which might not be too bad. Even it Go lags behind the cutting edge, it may still be an improvement on industry standards. Java was also heavily pushed by Sun --- and while I don't like it, I guess it's memory management is still an improvement over C++.

tamas 17y ago

I don't see it as cryptic. He just said "it's a toy". Also: oranges are way better than apples

dkersten 17y ago
And not just a "toy", but an "inferior toy". Also: no way! Bananas are better.

megamark16 17y ago

Perhaps what he's trying to say is that he's more interested in making programming more interesting and accessible for 1000 more children than he is in making an application able to scale up to 100,000 more users.

andresmh 17y ago
Broadening interest in programming is indeed one of the core ideas behind Scratch... and not to be picky but there are more than 90,000 people who have created and shared their Scratch project on scratch.mit.edu :)

acg 17y ago

I don't think they can be compared, he appears to be stating a preference (not dismissing go).

brown9-2 17y ago
Agreed. Sounds like he is just stating which happens to hold more of his interest currently.

b-man 17y ago

Scratch, Squeak and other similar environments follow the leading of Seymour Papert and his Logo language: low threshold and no ceiling For that they are different, and for that they are interesting.

Semiapies 17y ago

I don't see it as a cryptic remark; it does seem like a bit of an inkblot to some folks, though.