[nu11ptr]

> Unlike most other package managers files, Go modules don’t have a separate list of constraints and a lock file pinning specific versions.

The weird thing about the Go devs is there is always that little bit of elitism under the surface that I detect in their writing (whether it be colors in the playground, the GC, etc). I spent years writing Go and have now moved to Rust. What I find odd is the Rust team has done (IMO) one of the greater achievements in PL history and yet they seem to not have this elitism thing going on (or maybe I just haven't noticed). Go on the other hand, IMO, made some "interesting" language choices (like keeping null) and they seem to want to be celebrated for it and claim their achievements as new and novel.

EDIT: To clarify, I'm talking about the core Go devs - those that work on stdlib and the compiler

[vlunkr]

I don't see that elitism in this article. Supply chain attacks are a hot topic right now, so it makes sense for them to make a statement about where the language stands with them. They make compelling points, and they're not calling out specific language or package manager as a comparison.

[jchw]

This is a pretty genuinely confounding response, and I mean that with absolutely no offense intended. There is a tremendous amount of fighting between devs who prefer Go and Rust, and a tremendous amount of elitism as well, truly from both perspectives. Rust gained a reputation for elitism long before Go did; “Rust Evangelism Strike Force” was never meant to be pejorative, and “Rewrite it in Rust” was never meant to be a joke, but it became one anyways. It’s not hard to see why; Rust is genuinely novel in a way that few other programming languages are. It feels the most like the “future.”

But I still like Go a lot. I like Go because of how easy and simple it feels. There is definitely elitism over simplicity, but the elitism I’ve seen and even received from Rust and C++ programmers (…despite that I have been coding C++ forever and do have a few Rust projects as well…) has been pretty much the opposite: Go is too stupid and simple; real programmers need absurdly complex metaprogramming to make basic CLI tools or what have you. Now for what it’s worth, that has cooled down in many regards, and also, Rust is amazing and there’s nothing wrong with advanced metaprogramming. (It’s just another set of tradeoffs, after all. Unquestionably has its benefits.)

However, whereas people who have hated on Rust have often come to see it for what it is (an immensely cool, novel programming language,) Go has received the opposite treatment. People soured on it. Now everyone seems sure the GC latency (which of course is just about state of the art) is simply too much for most use cases. It’s seen adoption in all sorts of places and even been competitive with Rust software in performance, but it is commonly discussed as if Go is inherently obsolete because Rust is a better option in every way that matters. Bringing up Go in certain places often subjects you to ridicule, and I’m not joking. The memory ballast is a favorite among detractors to prove that the language is stupid and bad for production environments.

So when people do try to tout the benefits of Go, it’s routinely discredited and downplayed for some reason. It’s a nice language to use with a stellar standard library, nice tooling, and pretty good runtime performance.

This article doesn’t mention Rust (that I noticed) and Go is still being measured up to Rust in the comments. They both trade blows in different categories, but I truly believe that the fact that Go lacks the novelty of Rust with its borrow checker and language design has caused a lot of people to view it very negatively, and I think that is sad. People loved C for a lot of what it didn’t have. Go is a lot different than C, but for me, the sentiment is very much the same.

I think people see what they want to see. I like Go and Rust, but I find myself going back to Go for various reasons and it feels like every year it leads more and more people to ask for justification that they wouldn’t for other languages. It’s a little tiring.

[steveklabnik]

Without commenting on anything else here:

> “Rust Evangelism Strike Force” was never meant to be pejorative, and “Rewrite it in Rust” was never meant to be a joke

Maybe it's just been such a long time, but my recollection was exactly that: both of these terms were invented by outsiders intending to denigrate the Rust community, and became jokes inside the community as a means of recuperating them.

Okay, I will mention one other thing here:

> This article doesn’t mention Rust (that I noticed) and Go is still being measured up to Rust in the comments.

I agree with this in 99.999% of threads, this happens all the time, and probably shouldn't. However, in this thread in particular with the way that the Go package management story developed, including all of the drama there, I don't think it's surprising that Rust/Cargo get mentioned in comparison.

[jchw]

I won’t comment on Rust Evangelism Strike Force too much; it seemed to be unironically used as a term of endearment at some point, but that could’ve been after its use as a pejorative. At this point, I can’t remember, and frankly, the world is probably better off forgetting.

I understand. In the earlier days of Go package management, it was pretty common for folks to compare it to Cargo. In retrospect, this was probably bad, but it did serve to highlight some pretty damning issues with Go at the time. But I feel they addressed the shortcomings significantly with Go modules, and now it has become much more a matter of taste.

I enjoy Go’s idea of trying to make source control the only source of truth, but I don’t think it’s as well-received as the more tried-and-true approach of Cargo and other centralized package repositories. I suppose time will tell.

[nu11ptr]

To be clear, I have no issue with anyone who prefers Go. I was speaking about the core devs in particular. I would agree that the users of the language definitely go back and forth "trading blows".

[jchw]

Interesting and apologies for misunderstanding. I didn’t read the article as being elitist, though I can see how it reads as self-congratulatory to a degree. Maybe the matter-of-fact way that Go’s developers state its advantages comes off poorly compared to, for example, coming from the standpoint of trying to explain how they got to their current design based on the challenges. Personally, I find articles like this easier to read because they tend to be more terse when written this way versus some other approaches that are perhaps more humble.

[philosopher1234]

Lovely comment. I share your sentiment. Go is truly hated on hacker news these days (and, if you're brave enough to venture there, reviled on r/programming).

[xiaq]

The elitism stems not from solving cutting-edge PL problems, but from making technical decisions informed by engineering experience.

How much of that is justified is up to you, of course.