Sorry. I was actually goofing on the fact that Go demos are rehashing the history of C.

And frustrated that I'm not hearing anything from Golang programmers about how it enables a larger class of software.

"We're writing the same software, just better" isn't a reason to come up with a new language.

> "We're writing the same software, just better" isn't a reason to come up with a new language.

Define better.

Also, Go isn't really an all purpose programming language. It's application is fairly specific even if it's something a lot of people would use. It's good for fast, simple concurrent applications especially for web related projects. Bonus points for easy binary distribution. Microservices are a big deal, and golang is really well suited to build one.

On the other hand, it's never going to be the cool kid on the block like python where there are a tonne of clever libraries that are a lot slower but easier to build with.

> On the other hand, it's never going to be the cool kid on the block like python where there are a tonne of clever libraries that are a lot slower but easier to build with.

I think that you're underestimating Go and its community. The static type system of Go allows to catch many errors while Python has to rely on unit tests to even catch typos in variable names.

Building Go libraries and distributing them is much easier than Python/JavaScript/Perl/Ruby/Java/R now that Go has modules...

> I think that you're underestimating Go and its community.

The go community is part of the problem. And I mean that in a good way. So much of golang is about writing your own code. Like if you want a web framework, a lot of people will tel you to just write bare metal code. And it works. It's refreshing to have a simple language without all the crud. It's a wonderful feeling. Which is why people fight tooth and nail against any slightest bit of additional complexity in the language. Complexity that's sometimes needed to make it easier to write code fast.

There are so many options for statically typed languages that for low level projects, it's not worth it for go to try to get into that race.

After learning go i wanted to challenge myself by creating a game. I didnt see a lot of games created in go so i figured it would be fun to Make!

I'd say it is a great reason to write a new language. I mean, otherwise we'd just stick with assembly, no?

It's a great reason to write a new runtime. JVM is still okay.

If you thought using a new language would give you better runtime character, you were wrong. Languages are transpiled and cross-compiled on the reg, and it really makes no difference to the runtime what language you used to get your bytecodez into the scheduler.

It really feels as though someone has done career JVM professionals a huge favor, sending all the upcomers to Python and PHP and Golang. Let them learn in their sandboxes, right?

Newcomers don't need connectors anyway, they need the room to experiment with syntax and such, get their head around ASCII symbols. It's great, good luck.

In my teens I wrote Snake and Dig-Dug and Chinese Checkers and whatnot. I was learning to write anything at all. But twenty years on, distributed systems are applications. Writing Golang as though it changes the paradigm is fucking silly. But learn however you want to learn.

well as im not very familiar i cant judge about it, the only other languages i know are c#, php, html and css but i do get your point!

Nobody writes C# except for the sake of fitting into the .NET ecosystem. Java is the original dorky reference-oriented language with underlying bytecode, and after 20 years of runtime optimization it's still the best.

Newbies of every stripe are encouraged to think that language is the entry point for software development, but it's a teaching moment that most teachers fail. The language is not important.

The runtime is important.