Re: [FRIAM] [sfx: Discuss] The Go Programming Language

[Roger Critchlow]

On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 9:29 AM, Owen Densmore  wrote:

> So .. here's the question, given our current understanding: can Go succeed?
>
> Generally a new technology has to have a 10x improvement over the current
> tech to make it.  Its just too hard to change for it to merely be good and
> sexy.
>
> I've been on the Go Nuts group and found that they apparently are fairly
> slim group -- I asked if Joyent/Solaris could use Go in the near future.
>  No, they aren't working on a port, and near-term Windows is naturally their
> next platform.  This indicates to me that the group is lean-and-mean.
>
> That's fine, but suggests that Go is not getting a lot of support.  So it
> is not, for example, going to succeed the way Java did .. by being "better"
> and having a lot of libraries being built for it.  A LOT of them.
>
> Do you see a way for Go to really succeed?
>
> I wonder why you chose to show us the 32bit benchmarks:
  http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=all
instead
of the 64bit benchmarks:
  http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=all
The median performance of Go on 64bits (2.44) is better than the best
performing Go program on 32bits (2.69).

I'd be very wary of handicapping this at this point.  Go has been in public
existence for less than a year, announced last November, and in development
less than 3 years, since September 2007.  It's been in development a year
less than Java had been at its initial release in 1995.  In that time it's
overtaken 15 languages in performance on the 64bit list, including the
second oldest (Lisp at 62), the third and fourth oldest (Pascal and
Smalltalk at 40), the sixth oldest (Racket/Scheme at 30), and it's on the
verge of overtaking the oldest (Fortran at 63).  There is nothing in the
design of Go which will prevent it from eventually reaching parity with gcc
and g++ in scalar performance.

I've already found one of the Go benchmarks, mandelbrot, with
multi-processing support already in it.  It spins off a goroutine for each
available core to compute scan lines in parallel.

The issues of source code complexity and costs of compilation in large
projects are true problems. The dynamic languages simply ignore the issues,
by going for dynamic types, interpretation, and jits.  The compiled
languages are stuck with their syntax and their include file dependencies.

-- rec --

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] [sfx: Discuss] The Go Programming Language

[Marcus Daniels]

Owen Densmore wrote:
I've been on the Go Nuts group and found that they apparently are fairly slim group 

Unlike,

http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/
http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/pkg-list.html

http://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2010/05/27/announcing-intel-concurrent-collections-for-haskell-01/

http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/papers/haskell-retrospective/Haskell-Erlang-Jun09.pdf 




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] [sfx: Discuss] The Go Programming Language

[Tyler White]

Go is open source and I'm wondering how many of the successful languages are 
open source.

Go seems to be designed well for multiple core situations, so it may take off 
as cloud computing does.

Go might lower the development costs for huge projects if the right Go team can 
exploit the language's simplicity to save time.

At this point, I think the best languages are the ones that have large 
communities and libraries - assets that Go does not have.

Tyler



On Jul 25, 2010, at 9:29 AM, Owen Densmore  wrote:

> So .. here's the question, given our current understanding: can Go succeed?
> 
> Generally a new technology has to have a 10x improvement over the current 
> tech to make it.  Its just too hard to change for it to merely be good and 
> sexy.
> 
> I've been on the Go Nuts group and found that they apparently are fairly slim 
> group -- I asked if Joyent/Solaris could use Go in the near future.  No, they 
> aren't working on a port, and near-term Windows is naturally their next 
> platform.  This indicates to me that the group is lean-and-mean.
> 
> That's fine, but suggests that Go is not getting a lot of support.  So it is 
> not, for example, going to succeed the way Java did .. by being "better" and 
> having a lot of libraries being built for it.  A LOT of them.
> 
> Do you see a way for Go to really succeed?
> 
>-- Owen
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Santa Fe Complex 
> "discuss" group.
> To post to this group, send email to disc...@sfcomplex.org
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> discuss+unsubscr...@sfcomplex.org
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/a/sfcomplex.org/group/discuss


FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Re: [FRIAM] [sfx: Discuss] The Go Programming Language

[Owen Densmore]

So .. here's the question, given our current understanding: can Go succeed?

Generally a new technology has to have a 10x improvement over the current tech 
to make it.  Its just too hard to change for it to merely be good and sexy.

I've been on the Go Nuts group and found that they apparently are fairly slim 
group -- I asked if Joyent/Solaris could use Go in the near future.  No, they 
aren't working on a port, and near-term Windows is naturally their next 
platform.  This indicates to me that the group is lean-and-mean.

That's fine, but suggests that Go is not getting a lot of support.  So it is 
not, for example, going to succeed the way Java did .. by being "better" and 
having a lot of libraries being built for it.  A LOT of them.

Do you see a way for Go to really succeed?

-- Owen




FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org