Not to be a buzzkill, but… Maybe not having good arguments for using Go in this case should be taken as a signal that Go isn't a good fit? As much as I think Go would be useful for scientific applications, if we want to see that happens, we should work on making Go better for them, not on making up arguments for why it already is.
That being said, this seems like a classical "$boss don't want to bet $project on $technology, how do I convince them?" question. First step: Accept that $boss is reasonable to not put new (to them) technology in the business-critical path. All of the arguments you mentioned seem 100% convincing to me - even *though* I know Go much better than Python. If I'd start an astrophysics project today, I'd probably use Python for the sciency-computational parts, not Go. But you could try to find non-critical applications where Go already *is* a good fit, to prove its worth and increase your peers exposure to the language. Or you could propose to use Go in pieces of the puzzle, where it works very well. So, e.g. Python is great to code the computations and everything, but Go would be better suited to write the server and interface with the DB. On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Tamás Gulácsi <tgulacs...@gmail.com> wrote: > Python is terrible to maintain (lack of static typing or even compile-time > argument count (!) check). > > Write down the interfaces between the pipeline steps and nodes, making > each module replaceable. > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
