Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by pjmlp 2673 days ago
Case in point, Go has its roots in Oberon-2 and Limbo, and we all know how they both went.

Had Go been created while their authors would be working elsewhere, and it wouldn't have taken off like that.

Naturally one can use Dart as counter example, but it only failed because Chrome and Angular teams weren't willing to keep pushing it forward.

2 comments

Well looks like dart is getting back into the game thnx to Flutter
I don't have any high hopes for Flutter until I see it on https://developer.android.com/about

Fucshia is currently also exploring other UI stacks as per available commits.

Currently it looks like internal teams competition.

"true in part ..."

Sure, it would not get the initial visibility. But we would not keep using it if was an ineffective language.

Actually we would.

For example, even though I am not a big fan of Go, I have to use it when customers required us to deal with Docker or K8S.

Just like I have my issues with C, but would certainly use it when writing an UNIX driver.

Programming languages are products, and get used because of the eco-systems they carry along, bullet point features are usually secondary to that.

Well, I guess we diverge in our views (besides affection for Go) in that I see the adoption of Go for Docker (init release 2013) & K8S (2015) as merit based choices. Go was made public in 2009.

> Programming languages are products, and get used because of the eco-systems they carry along, bullet point features are usually secondary to that.

Non-sequitur.

K8S was initially developed in Java, the decision to switch to Go came later and they are still fighting the language, including having to maintain their own generics workaround.

https://fosdem.org/2019/schedule/event/kubernetesclusterfuck...

That says far more about K8S development team than the Go language..
It's absolutely relevant to the point that "we wouldn't keep using it if it wasn't an effective language" (modulo any disagreements about what "effective" means!). Many languages are heavily used due to network effects (popularity, marketing, community) and platform effects, not solely on technical merit. JavaScript and C come immediately to mind as examples of the platform effect on language selection. (The fact that modern JS transpilers exist merely papers over JS' dominant footing in the Web space.)
I wrote a thing about the economics of programming languages a while back:

https://www.welton.it/articles/programming_language_economic...

And it absolutely does make sense to view them as products in order to understand their uptake, or why they don't become popular.

You know, Ford Edsel was a "product" as well.

I maintain that it is a non-sequitur, if not patronizing, to state the obvious facts about software language eco-systems. My perception remains that Go sufficiently delighted a critical mass of developers who then proceeded to create the said eco-system. Mere marketing can not engender a vibrant community.

Your article puts it very clearly, I enjoyed reading it.