"learning/mastering both Go and Swift is the best decision you can make" is a very bold claim.

In my area we use Go for some systems but found it scales badly from an engineering point of view to larger more complicated systems, compared to languages like Java and Scala. The JVM has much more mature tooling and libraries too.

For mobile applications it will be a while until Swift is stable on Android, so some of the cross platform languages would be a good choice. React Native, Unity, Unreal for example.

For android, we already have kotlin (https://kotlinlang.org/), which is very similar to Swift and has 100% interoperability with java.

Until Google says it is the new king, most customers won't green light it.

Better alternative is Groovy: https://jaxenter.com/groovy-is-the-swift-alternative-for-and...

Better is very subjective.

They both solve a lot of the same problems, but lots of people will go for Kotlin just for static typing.

Groovy 2.0 added static typing: http://www.groovy-lang.org/releasenotes/groovy-2.0.html

It added type checking ala. Hack and Typescript. It's optional, and doesn't give you the same compile-time guarantees that a language with pure static typing does.

Also, dynamic languages like Groovy take a performance hit. Static typed JVM bytecode runs faster than dynamic bytecode.

Whether either of those are relevant to your application really depends, but Kotlin definitely is going to gain some followers due to it's differences from Groovy.

I'm learning Swift right now, and really appreciate type checking.

> Groovy creator Guillaume Laforge blogged that, “an acquainted Groovy eye would immediately notice the inspiration the Swift designers took from Groovy.”

Guillaume Laforge is NOT the creator of the Groovy Language, James Strachan is. And Swift did not take inspiration from Groovy.

What else is inaccurate in the article? 6 months after it was written, Pivotal voted against Groovy's diversion into static typing and Android development by retrenching Laforge and the programmer working on it.

In what way does Go scale badly from an engineering point of view?

It was our opinion that it's harder to write code that will be shared with a bigger team. Some of the factors were the simpler type system, lack of generics meant lots of copy and pasting of common patterns. The package system seemed less comprehensive and flexible in comparison to Java's. These are just subjective issues of course, but I think it's reaching a bit to say that Go and Swift are the best two languages you can learn.

Not a go fan, but seems like if anyone has scale problems, google would, and go would give them these issues too which is surprising since that was kind of the goal to solve from their perspective.

There's different definitions of scale. He is talking about from an engineering perspective and at Google we have seen nothing other than a few periphery sites being written in Go.

I fully agree that Go is a poor language if you are building a large, monolithic application.

> I fully agree that Go is a poor language if you are building a large, monolithic application.

I find that statement hilarious considering that it was explicitly one of the design considerations[1] for Go. So they either failed massively, or there's a difference in perspective on what a good language for programming in the large is.

From Rob Pike's talk[1]:

> Go was designed to address the problems faced in software development at Google, which led to a language that is not a breakthrough research language but is nonetheless an excellent tool for engineering large software projects.

1. https://talks.golang.org/2012/splash.article

>I find that statement hilarious considering that it was explicitly one of the design considerations[1] for Go.

That doesn't mean much, if anything. One of the design considerations for Java was "write once, run everywhere" and that didn't turn out that well either.

Most languages make failed or semi-failed promises.

And their idea of addressing software development at scale, might not be 2015's idea of doing the same.

Aside from Google, most other teams I've read using Go are more often than not writing small or medium-sized services, no big applications or highly complicated stuff.

I share that experience. I use Go whenever the service is simple, requires better performance than Python, and cannot use too much instance resources.

> I find that statement hilarious considering that it was explicitly one of the design considerations[1] for Go.

Isn't it hilarious that a statement from the Go authors could be used as evidence of its awesomeness given how the authors are naturally and heavily biased?

>but seems like if anyone has scale problems, google would

Google doesn't use Go at such large scale though. Some projects here and there, and most of them small for all I've read. The most publicly celebrated ones being a MySQL front-end for YouTube and a caching-layer (?) for Google Downloads. Not exactly earth shattering applications.

My understanding is that beyond the examples you talk about that go is being used extensively in google as a backend glue language for automation and services.

https://talks.golang.org/2012/splash.article

>as a backend glue language for automation and services.

Which again is not "at scale" (except in the sense that this automation manages thousands of servers etc).

It's what people used to use Tcl, Perl, Python, etc for.

These apps were the ones causing glacial compile times in c++?

I don't think the ones "causing glacial compile times" have been replaced.

I'd agree with you about the type system, but what's wrong with the package system of Go? (I have little experience with Java's)