5 ms·

> Statically typed language for webdev = <3 Like Java, or Scala, or even C++ (Okcupid did it)? I'm trying to figure out why Go made you arrive at this conclus

by cppsnob 15y ago

> Statically typed language for webdev = <3 Like Java, or Scala, or even C++ (Okcupid did it)? I'm trying to figure out why Go made you arrive at this conclusion and other languages did not.

leon_ 15y ago
> Java There's something (possibly irrational) in me that has a deep aversion against Java. Maybe it's from my job as game developer for J2ME devices back in 2003. Java is to me 90% boiler plate 10% actual app logic. > Scala Burn me on a stake but I'm not that into FP. Though I didn't look too much into Scala - maybe I missed a lot. > C++ I've been using C++ a lot for game development and other "serious" stuff. I don't love it. I don't like the OO model. (I tend to not like OO nowadays at all.) > Go made you arrive at this conclusion It's not that I arrived at this conclusion lately. I always favored static typed languages - but for a quick hack there wasn't anything that could beat ruby/python (at least nothing I know about). Go maybe doesn't beat them too but getting a webapp running with Go isn't too much effort either. I can live with that. And my hate for python's whitespace madness and Ruby's 1000 ways of saying one thing made the decision to try out Go for web dev easier :)
- jerf 15y ago
  "I'm not that into FP.... I tend to not like OO nowadays at all." What do you like? Honest, straight question.
  - krig 15y ago
    This is pure guesswork (I am not he) but given that he's happy with go, perhaps he likes the style of programming that go promotes? It's not OO, it's not FP. More like evolved procedural programming, I guess.
    - jerf 15y ago
      Go falls under the broader OO set. OO isn't C++/Java, OO is an ill-defined collection of techniques that centers on binding data structures and methods to manipulate those structures tightly together. (Any other criterion I've ever thought of has a language that doesn't meet it, yet is generally agreed to be OO; that is literally as tight as I can make a broad definition of OO. You can't even get too specific on the nature of the "binding", and yes, my definition permits C code that is structured in certain manners to be "OO". I don't have a problem with that.) Python, Javascript, Go, and Java are all "OO", despite a wide variety of significant differences.

by cppsnob 15y ago

> Statically typed language for webdev = <3 Like Java, or Scala, or even C++ (Okcupid did it)? I'm trying to figure out why Go made you arrive at this conclusion and other languages did not.

leon_ 15y ago

> Java There's something (possibly irrational) in me that has a deep aversion against Java. Maybe it's from my job as game developer for J2ME devices back in 2003. Java is to me 90% boiler plate 10% actual app logic. > Scala Burn me on a stake but I'm not that into FP. Though I didn't look too much into Scala - maybe I missed a lot. > C++ I've been using C++ a lot for game development and other "serious" stuff. I don't love it. I don't like the OO model. (I tend to not like OO nowadays at all.) > Go made you arrive at this conclusion It's not that I arrived at this conclusion lately. I always favored static typed languages - but for a quick hack there wasn't anything that could beat ruby/python (at least nothing I know about). Go maybe doesn't beat them too but getting a webapp running with Go isn't too much effort either. I can live with that. And my hate for python's whitespace madness and Ruby's 1000 ways of saying one thing made the decision to try out Go for web dev easier :)

jerf 15y ago
"I'm not that into FP.... I tend to not like OO nowadays at all." What do you like? Honest, straight question.
- krig 15y ago
  This is pure guesswork (I am not he) but given that he's happy with go, perhaps he likes the style of programming that go promotes? It's not OO, it's not FP. More like evolved procedural programming, I guess.
  - jerf 15y ago
    Go falls under the broader OO set. OO isn't C++/Java, OO is an ill-defined collection of techniques that centers on binding data structures and methods to manipulate those structures tightly together. (Any other criterion I've ever thought of has a language that doesn't meet it, yet is generally agreed to be OO; that is literally as tight as I can make a broad definition of OO. You can't even get too specific on the nature of the "binding", and yes, my definition permits C code that is structured in certain manners to be "OO". I don't have a problem with that.) Python, Javascript, Go, and Java are all "OO", despite a wide variety of significant differences.