←back to thread

302 points Bogdanp | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.2s | 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 #
mike_hearn ◴[] No.44394789[source]
> 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

Well, that point in the design space was already occupied by Java which also has extremely fast builds. Go exists primarily because the designers wanted to make a new programming language, as far as I can tell. It has some nice implementation aspects but it picked up its users mostly from the Python/Ruby/JS world rather than C/C++/Java, which was the original target market they had in mind (i.e. Google servers). Scripting language users were in the market for a language that had a type system but not one that was too advanced, and which kept the scripting "feel" of very fast turnaround times. But not Java because that was old and unhip, and all the interesting intellectual space like writing libs/conf talks was camped on already.

replies(5): >>44395036 #>>44396542 #>>44396960 #>>44397814 #>>44398191 #
frollogaston ◴[] No.44398191[source]
Golang having solid n:m greenthreading day 1 was its big deal. Java has had no good way to do IO-heavy multitasking, leading to all those async/promise frameworks that jack up your code. I cannot even read the Java code we have at work. Java recently got virtual threads, but even if that fixes the problem, it'll be a while before things change to that. Python had the same problem before asyncio. This isn't even a niche thing, your typical web backend needs cooperative multitasking.

I'm also not fond of any of the Golang syntax, especially not having exceptions. Or if you want explicit errors, fine, at least provide nice unwrap syntax like Rust does.

replies(2): >>44399022 #>>44399279 #
1. aaronblohowiak ◴[] No.44399022[source]
by FAR my biggest complaint about Golang was null instead of Option. could have been special cased like their slice and map and would have been so so so much better than nil checks imho. really, a big miss.