[wwweston]

> You should ponder why Erlang or Haskell achieved a fraction of Go's adoption despite being on the market 20+ years longer.

This line of thinking serves more to call in to question the engineering and management cultures we have than it does to reflect poorly on Haskell and Erlang, and if it's true that Go's essential strength compared to them is that it is well-fitted to these cultures, that's not particularly flattering, however locally practical it may be.

[AnimalMuppet]

That sounds almost like denial to me. "If everybody doesn't adopt what I think they should, it has to be because they're dysfunctional! It can't be because the stuff I like is less generally applicable than I think it is!"

If people disagree with you, your default assumption should be that they are looking at different evidence than you, not that they are incompetent or stupid.

[jshen]

If languages like Haskell and Erlang gave a competitive advantage, wouldn't we see companies which used them succeeding over those that don't?

Maybe Go is fitting into the cultures that succeed, and if that's the case, well it's the better choice, right?

[lmm]

> If languages like Haskell and Erlang gave a competitive advantage, wouldn't we see companies which used them succeeding over those that don't?

We are. WhatsApp generated a flurry of interest around Erlang. Heroku uses it. I'm sure there are more examples.

Google is at this point already a large corporation and probably already in decline (IMO). The tools they use are optimized for interchangeability of mediocre programmers, not for high productivity from a small team. Go is a perfectly good Java 1.4.

(There's Docker using Go, but I think their whole approach is a bad idea).

[jshen]

You are seeing companies that use those languages suceeding at a higher rate than those that don't? I bet I can find 10 succeeding that use ruby or node for everyone that uses Erlang.

We could also look at the open source world. For every riak there are 10 java sucesses of a similar kind.

We'd need to do some real statistics but my bet is that we see no benefit from those languages in terms of success of the business.

[lmm]

> I bet I can find 10 succeeding that use ruby or node for everyone that uses Erlang.

But that's not the question, is it? There are a lot of companies succeeding with ruby or node, but also a lot of companies failing with them. I'll bet the strike rate is better for Erlang companies.

[jshen]

Il bet that the choice of language has no impact on success.

[codygman]

What about whitespace? Do you think choosing it or brainfuck has an impact on success?

[pjmlp]

> If languages like Haskell and Erlang gave a competitive advantage, wouldn't we see companies which used them succeeding over those that don't?

Like these?

https://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Haskell_in_industry

https://www.erlang-solutions.com/industries

https://ocaml.org/learn/companies.html

http://fsharp.org/testimonials/

[codygman]

The stock price of Standard Chartered is 939 GBX currently.