|
|
|
|
|
|
by ddw
3448 days ago
|
|
|
While I agree with you and I tend to stay as lean as possible, it always perplexes me why people want a Django/RoR/Phoenix in Go. These other frameworks are mature and battle tested enough in agreeable enough programming languages, why attempt to reinvent them in Go? Go's strength and afaik original purpose for Google was for creating smaller services, not a web app monolith. |
|
|
Personally I get that appeal more strongly now that in Django-land we're well over 100K LOC and dealing with a lot more traffic and so on than when we started. Helping folks scale gracefully from "tiny app you can get going very soon" to "larger app that's still cool to maintain" might be where there's the most unfilled need.
The truly hard part is figuring out what improvements you can achieve without host/graft disease, where either the language itself or softer factors keep the mashup from working satisfactorily.
That is, one way to fail at improving DB-backed webapps in Go is the obvious one: you don't actually make them easy to build. Another is if you do make it easy to get started, but in the process lose the things that made it appealing to use Go. Those might be "hard" technical attributes like static checks and decent perf, or "soft" human- and standards-oriented things about Go: flexibility in choosing libs you want, or norms favoring explicit code where it's possible to work out what's really running from what's on the page.
Feeling out those tradeoffs is probably a long, communal process with a lot of trial-and-error. Certainly it's slower and harder than just trying to translate the dyn-language tools already out there. But I think it is possible and could be really useful.