On Sat, 2 Dec 2017 11:37:46 -0800 (PST), you wrote: >Google is not going to be happy if somebody uses Go to compete against >Google. AFAIK, most if not all of Google's money comes from selling >advertising on their >search-engine.
Another view - Google search only works because people / companies put stuff online, and Go helps get stuff online -> Go being publicly available helps Google. >I mentioned the ANS-Forth standard of 1994, which is truly awful from a >technical stand-point. The author of ANS-Forth was Elizabeth Rather, the >owner of Forth Inc.. >Charles Moore, the inventor of Forth left Forth Inc. in 1982, and he >abandoned ANS-Forth in 1989. He says that ANS-Forth is not Forth at all. >Elizabeth Rather is unconcerned that ANS-Forth has technical problems. She >says that the purpose of ANS-Forth is "portable programmers." >Apparently Forth Inc. was tired of hiring programmers who know nothing >about Forth, and training them from the ground up. >She wants programmers to learn the rudiments of Forth first, before they >apply for work at Forth Inc.. >ANS-Forth is adequate for writing trivial programs, for learning the >rudiments of Forth --- learn how DUP OVER SWAP ROT etc. work. >ANS-Forth was purposely crippled though, to prevent it from being used for >writing non-trivial programs in competition with Forth Inc.. But the world is a very different place than 1994. >This is the danger of allowing a corporation to define a >programming-language standard --- competitors will be non-standard --- all >programmers are competitors. But that concept of "standard" has no meaning anymore - thanks to the acceptance of open source into the mainstream the open source version woud quickly become the de-facto standard and the private version would be considered non-standard. >Most likely, Google made Go public because they wanted enthusiastic >contributors to help them develop Go --- hiring programmers is expensive. >After Go is settled though, Google may make it proprietary again. The >enthusiasts will succeed so well that no further contribution from them is >needed. >Google could kill Go by pushing a crippleware version through ANSI and >calling that the "Standard" so nobody can use Go to write non-trivial >programs. Again, a crippled ANSI standard would be ignored. You can't simply pretend the open source Go doesn't exist because it doesn't fit your narrative. I personally have no opinion on the relevance of major standard bodies when it comes to programming languages. The C++ community seems to make the ISO process work for them, but on the other hand languages like Python, Perl, Bash all seem to survive just fine without. All that matters is that Go has a thriving community, both of developers and users (see the blog post about the 8 years*), which means even if Google abandoned the open source Go it would continue for a very long time. * https://blog.golang.org/8years -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
