Comment by chii
1 day ago
golang should not be on the list of corriculums. Neither should any language owned by a corporation.
The only language that can be on the list are open standards language that has multiple implementations, and is "free" (as in libre).
Not to mention it should be a language that demonstrates an idea - such as python for procedural, haskell for functional, and LISP-likes for well, lisps.
They shouldn't be teaching golang because it's a terrible blub language, not because of any concern over the license which is fine.
The Google version of Go uses a 3-clause BSD like license. There are other implementations besides the one maintained by Google, and there is a complete specification for the language freely available. The language is not owned by Google.
> there is a complete specification for the language freely available.
and who has the ability to make changes to this specification?
Not to mention that there's really no second implementation of go for the specification, which means that google is realistically free to make updates to it that they feel necessary, and there would be no 2nd party that could object to it.
I understand your concerns with regard to what languages should be used for teaching purposes and I agree with them. But I don't agree that it applies to Go.
> Not to mention that there's really no second implementation of go for the specification,
Is that true? The GCC frontend is a little out of data with regard to the current spec but it was written to the spec as it existed at the time. Also, TinyGo matches the language spec I think. It has limited compatibility with the standard library, but the specification doesn't talk about the standard library at all.
> and who has the ability to make changes to this specification?
There's nothing stopping anyone taking the current Go specification, extending it and using the Google implementation of Go as the base for something new. Although you wouldn't call it Go in that case.
I personally like that there is a central arbiter with the final say on the specification. Admittedly, I would prefer it if it wasn't Google, but I'm not convinced a Rust like foundation model would be any better in the case of Go.
Yes but it is still controlled by Google and has not been moved to a foundation? Like for example the Rust Foundation.
True. However the control really only extends to the name and the amount of human effort allowed by employees on the Google implementation, as far as I can tell.
If Google decide that they were no longer developing their implementation of the language and moving the employees to other things, there's nothing stopping a foundation from being established. It would be ideal if this was organised by Google as part of their exit, but failing that I would expect other stake-holders in the language to organise something.
What advantages would moving to a foundation like structure bring to Go?
2 replies →
Controlled in the sense that most of the maintainers are Google employees. But how does that make a difference? The tool chain is available as FOSS, there’s no possibility of a rug pull.
2 replies →
I like Go and you're right but I agree with the poster above, there's something to be said about De Jure and De Facto distinctions in Google "owning" Go.
Why not split the difference and teach Luau in the Roblox environment instead? /s
Agree with this.
The idea that go demonstrates is “this is the language to get shit done in”.
I actually think Go is a great language to teach programmers. It has a good standard library. It has a really easy way of turning your code into a library (this is great to get students to learn how libraries work and the risks associated with them by depending on each others code).
A ton of new software that’s actually making money or is used as core infrastructure is written in Go. The world’s largest CA is in Go. Kubernetes is in Go.
Do you know who controls Python, Haskell, Lisp or C++?
The Linux kernel is corporate and has one implementation. Is it safe to use?
Corporate? Which corporation are you thinking of?
I'm not aware of any corporation having an undue influence on Linux development.
Do you know what percentage of contributions to Linux are from corporations?
1 reply →