Will Golang ever become popular?

Only among niggers and women, the target demographic

>>60525685
>we will never get plan9 rewritten in golang

Imagine the mascot

>>60525685
It's already getting pretty popular. Most of the SV hipster crowd is writing their CLI apps in it, expect adoption to only increase from there.

Shame the language is such a fuck to write in, though. Explicit error checks feels like going back in time 30 years when we have exception handling everywhere else.

File: lang.rank_.117.wm_.png (139KB, 1250x915px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1250x915px

>Just below typescript
Also
>CSS
>A programming language

>>60525803
it's turing complete

>>60525685
Only if Android adds first class support for Golang

>>60525685
No, there's literally no reason to use it over C++17/Rust/Java besides being a dumb Google employee or a dumb Google fanboy.
>>60527044
Not gonna happen, they're betting on Kotlin.

>>60525685
Hopefully never

>>60525932
>>>60525803
>it's turing complete
Nice try you almost got me.

I bet HTML must be Turing complete as well then? :^)

>>60527073
You can always spot the people who don't write anything besides FizzBuzz

>iterally no reason to use it
>clean standard library shipping with high quality implementations of everything you need to write backend stuff

>>60527291
>clean standard library shipping with high quality implementations of everything you need to write backend stuff
This is more about the JVM standard library Kotlin uses than anything Go comes with.

>>60525685
>no generics
>if err == -1
>designed from the ground up with the purpose of allowing google to employ more braindead pajeets
it's a horrible language

File: 1495368211005.png (25KB, 300x441px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 300x441px

>>60525685
no, because the plan9 people are have the shit-Midas touch
/thread

>>60527619
UTF-8 tho.

>>60525685
It already is.

>>60527638
Even a broken clock is right twice a day when creating trivial standards.

I learned Java in school but I use Go because it's faster, cleaner, easier and lets me pop Java's OOP bubble while still clinging to my GC.

I don't see why others wouldn't do the same, unless they've been deluded into thinking Java is better, or just hardwired to use it. Remember that popularity can take decades.

>>60525685

I feel like Golang has reached it's peak. The hype will probably go down in the next few months/year, even with all that shilling from google.

It probably won't vanish, but it won't get any higher either.

>>60529001
I can see Go being a step up from Java but a step down coming from any other language.

>>60529065
A step down from what?

>>60529111
Anything that isn't Java?
Did you fail HS and are unable to read?

>>60529200
I asked what langs you thought were better than Go

>>60529235
>any other language
Open your goddamn eyes you ESL moron

>>60529235
Scala, Kotlin, C#, C++17, Rust, even pure C, depending on the task.

>>60529243
then, COBOL is better?

You're not good at conversation.

>>60529278
As for Rust, why do you prefer it over Go? I found it claustrophobic and inconvenient, making code that's both hard to read and to write.

>>60529354
- Borrow checker instead of GC
- Actual type system with ADT and pattern matching instead of a primitive C-tier type system
- Generics instead of code generation and interface{}
- Sane error processing instead of `if err != nil` in every other line
- Sane modular system instead of "capital letter means public"
- Macro system instead of code generation
- Multithreading/async IO implemented in libraries instead of having a single fits-all approach approved by the devs
- Good support for functional programming instead of the verbosity a-la the 80s
- Cargo/crates.io instead of pulling libraries directly from github
- C-tier performance instead of Java-tier performance
- LLVM backend instead of NIH toolchain directly from Plan 9
There're a lot of articles comparing both, you can google for more info.

>>60529282

>then, COBOL is better?

Obviously COBOL has a much bigger market penetration. There is a lot of COBOL code in the financial sector.

BFTO, mammal lover.


>>60529354

Rust and Go have nothing in common.

If Go could become (almost) as fast as C it would be another story, but this way the purpose for usage are vastly different.


>>60529491

Go shill somewhere else.

>>60529562
>got asked
>post an answer
>GO SHILL SOMEWHERE ELSE
Wew, lad.

>>60529491
>Borrow checker vs. GC
>C-tier performance
Simply a trade-off.

>Go has a C-tier type system
Are you sure about that?

>generics
>macros
>functional coding
I agree that this is largely what is missing from Go, though it's never been critical for me.

>multithreading
You know that Go supports os threads, right?

>Pulls from github
More like "encourages pulling from github". You're free to do it how you want to, though I really do like crates.io.

>sane error processing
>sane modular system
I don't think they're vastly different, it's just syntax

>"NIH" backend from plan 9
Except it's using the plan9 backend, not inventing its own? Not sure what you're getting at.

>>60525803
What year was this chart made in?

>>60529751
Q1(20)17

>>60529639
> Simply a trade-off.
Trading what for what exactly?
> Are you sure about that?
Yes? No? My point is, Go's type system is nowhere near Rust's, being way more primitive.
> You know that Go supports os threads, right?
I know, I just don't think any kind of threading should be a part of a language.
> I don't think they're vastly different, it's just syntax
You're wrong, Rust's error processing story is completely different from Go's. In Go you can ignore the error and go ahead just like you would do in C, while in Rust, thanks to ADT and pattern matching, you literally can't access a returned value without ensuring there are not errors first. And try! and ? operator implement all the ifs for you, meaning Rust's code is both more concise and safer.
> Except it's using the plan9 backend, not inventing its own
The authors are inventing their own backend (and entire toolchain actually) from the 80s instead of using state-of-the-art systems like gcc and llvm, because they're too emotionally attached to it. This is literally NIH, here's more info: http://dtrace.org/blogs/wesolows/2014/12/29/golang-is-trash/ .

>>60525689
He is asking about Go, not JS.
Im getting on youtube suggested some videos from JSCon or something like that, and 90% of speakers are fucking feminist looking females

>>60529623

>implying you weren't samefagging

Go is literally only useful for web microservices.

>>60529801
>the trade-off
Between speed and ease of use?

>type system
Sure. But IMO the most useful part isn't the typing, but the many useful builtin traits in Rust.

>error handling
So, it's shorter in rust on the using end, and stricter. I do appreciate that, but I also like how simple it is in Go.

>that article
That guy is going full-on offensive, he makes some points but I'd like a less biased article.

>>60529978
> Between speed and ease of use?
That's the point, borrow checking isn't that harder to use in most cases.
> it's shorter in rust on the using end, and stricter
> I also like how simple it is in Go.
So it's actually shorter and safer in Rust but still somehow simpler in Go?
> That guy is going full-on offensive
He's quite aggressive, I agree, but it's not like he's a Rust or C fanboy, he's an OS maintainer and he provides actual examples to support his point.

>>60530062
I had a lot of trouble with the borrow checker, especially with sdl2. I couldn't get it to keep textures around, they would always go out of scope and deallocate.

Go has much simpler error handling, there's no type for it and not much to learn. It's just two values, very easy to reason about.

The guy in the article critiques go's assembly (aka plan9's), but fails to mention that it isn't even necessarily used by the Go compiler, for example, which is in the first paragraph of https://golang.org/doc/asm that he links to.

>>60530159
Well, yeah, it takes time to get used to the borrow checker. Can't wait for non-lexical lifetimes in the stable.

I guess it's simpler in a sense, but it's the same sense C's error handling is simple, and we all know this isn't the kind of simplicity you should be aiming for.

He critiques the reference implementation in general, so you can just use gccgo. Still, it's not a good sign.

>>60530343
Is there a good place to learn about rust beta features?

>>60530398
I don't think there's such a list, the closest thing is https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/libsyntax/feature_gate.rs#L112 .

>>60527073
People say Go is made for unintelligent programmers, but Java is made from the ground up to be useful with an IDE, something only retards rely on. It's LITERALLY made for retards to click and press buttons instead of just editing text. Go has great official tooling that integrates with text editors to give them IDE-like features, but without the need for a whole IDE. This makes it extremely hard to write bad Go code. Also, almost all Java programs start out with generated code. Java is for literal retards.

C++ changes so often that any old code bases will be nearly indecipherable to new, modern C++ programmers. This means that a decade old code base that's been maintained by 20 or more people will be a convoluted mess. We've all seen them.

>kotlin

fun main(args: Array<String>) {
println("Hello, world!")
}

>Go

func main() {
println("Hello world")
}

kotlin is trash

>>60531107
I don't think there is such a thing as a language for more or less intelligent programmers.

The intelligent thing is to figure out what you like, what you should best use, then to use it.

File: pike_on_go.png (78KB, 681x510px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 681x510px

>>60531107
> People say Go is made for unintelligent programmers
Not "people", the author of Go himself. Also being better than Java isn't something to brag about t b h.

>>60531642
>Continuously taking this quote out of context

>>60531157
>fun
Shit like this annoys the fuck out of me, and is the biggest reason I've never given Rust the time of day. fucking fn mut let bullshit.
Half the symbols I read make sounds in my head so when I read "fun" I literally read it as the word fun, and fn ends up as fin, and it just leaves this awful annoying feeling in my mouth. Fucking hell.
funCtion
Not fun, not fn, not finnywinny. Fucking jesus.

>>60531642
He also claims pretty much every popular language is "not brilliant". You just don't understand what he means by "brilliant". Pike probably considers assembly code brilliant, seeing as he's done so much work with it.

>>60525803
Why the fuck is Ruby so popular.

>>60531744
lmao

I always mentally read "function", no matter what it says.

>>60531840
Its really pleasing to write in.

>>60531840
see
>>60531876
It's basically Python but for people who value the details. I really hope people get those details over to Crystal.