←back to thread

302 points Bogdanp | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.427s | source
Show context
rednafi ◴[] No.44392307[source]
I’m glad that Go went the other way around: compilation speed over optimization.

For the kind of work I do — writing servers, networking, and glue code — fast compilation is absolutely paramount. At the same time, I want some type safety, but not the overly obnoxious kind that won’t let me sloppily prototype. Also, the GC helps. So I’ll gladly pay the price. Not having to deal with sigil soup is another plus point.

I guess Google’s years of experience led to the conclusion that, for software development to scale, a simple type system, GC, and wicked fast compilation speed are more important than raw runtime throughput and semantic correctness. Given the amount of networking and large - scale infrastructure software written in Go, I think they absolutely nailed it.

But of course there are places where GC can’t be tolerated or correctness matters more than development speed. But I don’t work in that arena and am quite happy with the tradeoffs that Go made.

replies(9): >>44392470 #>>44392882 #>>44393976 #>>44394789 #>>44395314 #>>44395527 #>>44395624 #>>44398142 #>>44398420 #
ode ◴[] No.44392882[source]
Is Go still in heavy use at Google these days?
replies(2): >>44393168 #>>44396765 #
hu3 ◴[] No.44393168[source]
What would they use for networking if not Go?
replies(2): >>44394634 #>>44395892 #
1. surajrmal ◴[] No.44394634[source]
C++ and Java. Go is still used, but it's never caught up to the big two.
replies(1): >>44398396 #
2. frollogaston ◴[] No.44398396[source]
And probably more Java than C++