[sobakistodor]

As I remember, Go was "invented" to allow writing SMALL projects, where people previously used Bash/C/Perl. Like all these small command-line utilities and scripts to solve Site-Reliability-Engineer-tasks or DevOps-tasks. Using Go in projects larger than "multithreaded custom-binary-format to CSV converter" or "daemon watching sensors and inserting ROWS to some DB" is not very good. Big thing about GO is lots of libs available for everything (but in that view Python is better).

[coder543]

> As I remember, Go was "invented" to allow writing SMALL projects

Absolutely not. It is an opinionated language that is designed to make it easier to build large projects.

Go is used for tons of large-scale web backends. It's a far better choice for writing network-connected services than C++, let alone C!

> Big thing about GO is lots of libs available for everything (but in that view Python is better).

Except that Go runs circles around Python, just like most compiled languages.

Based on what you've written, I don't believe you have any experience with Go, so why are you writing large comments about it?

[sobakistodor]

Have experience with GO. Feels like C in terms of lack of templates, and feels like Java in terms of "how I avoid world-freezes by GC". Go seems semantically less rich than C++ language makes you write MORE code for the same thing you would write in C++ using your HTTP-framework.

[coder543]

> feels like Java in terms of "how I avoid world-freezes by GC"

No… that’s not Go’s GC that you have experience with. I don’t know what language you used that you confused with Go. GC pauses in Go are notoriously tiny, since Go prioritizes consistently low latency. I’ve worked on many Go projects, and GC is not something that I worry about.

> Feels like C in terms of lack of templates

Are you seriously implying that C was not designed for large projects? That it was designed for tiny projects only? Because that’s not what history shows us, and C is used in massive projects like the Linux kernel. (Which causes innumerable CVEs related to human errors that C doesn’t attempt to prevent, unfortunately.)

It also doesn’t matter how fast you can churn out code if it’s Swiss cheese full of memory safety vulnerabilities. No one has ever pointed me to a popular C or C++ project that hasn’t been rife with vulnerabilities that would have been trivially avoided by using any memory safe language… so it’s a fair assumption that any C++ that you’re churning out has problems.

You mention Rust, and that’s a perfectly valid option if you have such a passionate hatred of garbage collectors. But, using C++ for a web service in 2021? No thanks. We need to be minimizing attack surface these days. (Memory safe languages can’t prevent all vulnerabilities, but neither do seatbelts. You should still wear a seatbelt when driving. Unbuckling doesn’t make the car go faster, and seatbelts do prevent certain classes of injuries.)

[sobakistodor]

> No…

Yes. I don't need any micro-freezes.

> Are you seriously implying that C was not designed for large projects?

C was designed to move from asm to something highlevel. C made possible to write larger projects than in ASM. That's all. There is no absulute measurement of project size, only relative: larger->smaller. Go goes to "smaller" direction compared to C++.

All that arguments about safe/bugs etc is old. In modern C++ you write with no controlling memory allocation at all and you dont write your own arrays with can be overflown.

[coder543]

> All that arguments about safe/bugs etc is old. In modern C++ you write with no controlling memory allocation at all and you dont write your own arrays with can be overflown.

People say this, but they never point to any large, popular projects that demonstrate it.

If you write any serious project in Rust, you'll quickly realize how unsafe "modern" C++ is. There's just no comparison. I'm happy for people to pick whatever memory safe language meets their needs, and most of those are garbage collected. Garbage collectors are fine for most software, but Rust exists for situations where they aren't fine.

> C was designed to move from asm to something highlevel. C made possible to write larger projects than in ASM. That's all. There is no absulute measurement of project size, only relative: larger->smaller. Go goes to "smaller" direction compared to C++.

By your definition, everyone should be writing Haskell, because a single line of Haskell can take tens of lines of C++ to express the same code. Haskell is immensely powerful in this way.

[masklinn]

> In modern C++ you write with no controlling memory allocation at all and you dont write your own arrays with can be overflown.

The simplest and most straightforward way to access an std::vector item allows OOB read. Literally every smart pointer an be empty and will UB with no warning if deref'd in that state (that includes the brand new std::optional). The rules of X remain a tarpit lined with shit-smeared stakes, Chrome got bit by a GDI leak just a pair of years back because of that (a refactoring in an RAII object removed an operator= overload and started leaking GDI handles by the hundred when using chrome remote desktop).

[masklinn]

> As I remember, Go was "invented" to allow writing SMALL projects

You remember wrong. Go was designed to allow quickly onboarding grads onto large projects.

> Like all these small command-line utilities and scripts to solve Site-Reliability-Engineer-tasks or DevOps-tasks.

I don't know what you're thinking about but it's certainly not Go: half the language is centered around concurrency, which is not very useful for this, especially going through the pain and costs "green" threads otherwise impose.

Go was designed to build network services and servers.

[Cthulhu_]

> As I remember, Go was "invented" to allow writing SMALL projects

On the contrary, one of the motivators for building Go was for large (millions of LOC) codebases; build speed and how fast a developer is comfortable in the codebase were big motivators for its build pipeline and code style.