News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Brad Fitzpatrick on the future of Go by erikb on Wednesday October 15, 2014 @11:55AM (#8459096)
So there is a protocol that is standard, but not the tool which implements it? That is not what I understood after I've read the article. But that would definitely mean it's actually not bad to have different tools.

There must be some standard, though. If you have neither a defined protocol, nor a defined tool, then you have a broken community. That you need to support different package managers for different Linux distros is one of the reasons people don't support Linux for their tools, and I personally would even argue that it is one of the reasons languages like Ruby, Python and Go need to solve that themselves.

Re:Brad Fitzpatrick on the future of Go by kyrra on Wednesday October 15, 2014 @02:20PM (#8460596)
It's only an issue for where source code is put, not binaries or shared libs. All Go programs are statically linked, so end-users of a program don't care at all about dependancies. The only people that will care about it are those that want to build the binary themselves.

Also, if you are unaware, Go has great cross-platform building. I can generate the executables for all platforms/architectures Go supports from my single dev machine.