Along comes Go and in 8 years people have built more production code with it than probably all the functional programming languages of the world combined. If that's not true yet, it will be soon the way the trend is going. And those languages have been around for many decades.
I think this means Paul Graham was wrong - a powerful language isn't a killer advantage. Other things matter more. Like simplicity that means being able to read other people's code and cooperate on a large code base. Strong language tooling. A batteries included standard library. Being able to hire developers not skilled in language X and get them up to speed quickly.
At the end of the day it seems pragmatic wins.
Outside of very specific fields, language doesn't matter.
I was quite strongly attacked on another thread for implying that WhatsApp is just another CRUD app.
The thing was that I wasn't bashing their dev team. They could have done a crazy amazing job, and it helped their company take off, but what was their secret sauce?
The ability to have an (almost) free SMS/MMS app which worked the same across all devices and worked with numbers rather than names/userid's, followed by network affects.
They could have written it in PHP and have it take off. And a competitor could have written it Haskell and had it fail.
(FB is written in PHP, MySpace was written in CF, Friendster was written in jsp, so logically PHP > CF > Friendster. Therefore, PHP > Java. QED?)
Twitter didn't fail because it was written in Ruby. It failed because of business.
Diaspora isn't FB not because of tech, but because of business.
Perhaps people disagreed with you because it seems to me that WhatsApp is an outlier where a specific language and runtime (Erlang & OTP) provided a clear advantage in a specific domain (realtime networked messaging). In this specific instance, the language provided facilities that made it easier to solve a specific type of problem than it would have been in other languages. It helped them get to market more quickly, and in that way could have directly contributed to the application's chance of success. I suppose what I'm getting at is that I think there's a decent case to be made that WhatsApp is one of those very specific instances you mentioned where the language is part of the company's secret sauce.
That's still no reason for anyone to attack you, though! It's easy enough to disagree in a friendly way. :)
That's it.
It's not that different from Facebook.
Now, to get it to scale it may pay to use a high-reliability language. To make it secure you may not want to write it in C. But it would have taken off the same had it been written in Perl, PHP, Lisp, C, Assembly or Erlang.
Maybe it would have needed more hardware.
Maybe it would have crashed a few times.
But it would have taken off nonetheless.
> Along comes Go
Really means
> Along comes Google
It's nothing against Go, but we have to be realistic that having Google's weight behind it significantly increases its marketing while also making business owners a little more comfortable (aka - a modern nobody ever got fired for buying IBM).
There are a lot of frontend frameworks out there but React and Angular dominate largely because of Facebook and Google's influence.
That said, every language has tradeoffs. All you have to be able to do in order to have a rational conversation is to acknowledge those tradeoffs. Go has some tradeoffs but there's a general feeling that the resulting balance is worth it.
It also increases no of expert engineers contributing to project full time.
It's also not like Go is the only popular language. Other popular languages like Javascript, C# or Python have plenty of features and magic. Also, Elixir seems to be doing pretty well, so maybe that's a way for functional languages to gain traction.
Elixir, being newer, was made with modern environments and tooling in mind. Go has the same advantage.
Lauding Go's success over Haskell is not really saying much.
One immediate thought that I have - programming is now much more accessible. High-quality compilers are much easier to get, good documentation is much easier to find. Much fewer people have done nothing but work on one language, one technology stack, etc. They still exist, of course, but they're much fewer in number.
This means that people are more likely to choose the right tool for the job, which kinda defeats the point of the Blub paradox - that people's perspectives on problems are constrained by the languages that they know.
Seeing as how a lot more people are dicking around with Haskell and Lisp in college and in toy projects, I don't think that this is as much of an issue. You know what generics are, and you've used generics in other code, but you're making the conscious decision not to use a language that has them in order to get better traits in other areas.
I don't think it does. So maybe the people picking Go have a preference for minimalism, or they pick Go despite it's lack of generics and other features, because of performance, or popularity, or tooling.
The "criticisms of Go are addressed every time the language is discussed: in practice, generics are rarely missed. They would be nice to have, but their absence is outweighed by other benefits of the language.
Critiques of Go tend to be principal-based: "Go doesn't have features X, Y, and Z, therefore it cannot be a good language. QED." Praise of Go, on the other hand, tends to be pragmatic: "We built something in Go, features X, Y, and Z weren't missed and we enjoyed features A, B, and C, which the language's detractors oddly refuse to acknowledge." Which view carries more weight is left up to the reader.
> http://paulgraham.com/avg.html
I know this is heresy, but has this article really held up well over time? Since 1995, when ViaWeb was founded, how many other companies have been able to run rings around their competitors by using Lisp or something similar? Are we really going to base our arguments on a sample size of 1? How many counterexamples are there?