[pjmlp]

No they weren't, in fact they were very surprised by the adoption from Python folks.

"I was asked a few weeks ago, "What was the biggest surprise you encountered rolling out Go?" I knew the answer instantly: Although we expected C++ programmers to see Go as an alternative, instead most Go programmers come from languages like Python and Ruby. Very few come from C++.

We—Ken, Robert and myself—were C++ programmers when we designed a new language to solve the problems that we thought needed to be solved for the kind of software we wrote. It seems almost paradoxical that other C++ programmers don't seem to care."

https://commandcenter.blogspot.com/2012/06/less-is-exponenti...

[mpyne]

> No they weren't, in fact they were very surprised by the adoption from Python folks

I'm kind of surprised that the Go creators were surprised by this.

Like I know they didn't like C++, but Go is by no means a replacement for C++ despite whatever was said about "building a better C++/Java".

It took so long to pick up generics that Rust was already around and the logical next step for C++ developers by the time that happened. And that's only scratching the surface of why people choose C++.

On the other hand, having a more performant "simple" language that directly supports concurrency and lets you compile to native code without a ton of ceremony could be very helpful indeed if you're a Python dev who need to take an app to the next level without having to learn intricacies of C FFI or the GIL.

[win311fwg]

Why wouldn't they be surprised? Python users were already using Python, so presumably it already solved their problems and they wouldn't benefit from another Python. Through Google's eyes, anyone who needed performance would have already long abandoned Python for C++.

What Googlers don't have a grasp of is how resource constrained most other businesses are. They cannot afford to hire C++ experts and were using Python because Python developers were the only developers they could get their hands on, even where Python wasn't providing sufficient performance.

[win311fwg]

> No they weren't

Indeed they were. Your quote even says so — seeking out to solve the problems C++ was thought to have, which is that it didn't have the ergonomics of languages like Python, as explained in the original public Go announcement. To "feel like a dynamically-typed language" was a primary motivation. That was clearly told.

You can certainly hold the view that a better C++ and a fast Python are one and the same, but I suspect the HN crowd will vehemently disagree with you. Conflating the two would not serve to communicate much here.

> were very surprised by the adoption from Python folks.

Quite naturally. Python users were already using Python. One would be inclined to think that they didn't need another Python. Except it turns out they did, because it was actually they who needed a faster Python.