>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.
Re:Swift is Open Source
by netheril96 on Thursday December 03, 2015 @07:02PM
(#10673685)
> 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?
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