I beg to differ. I fail to see why I should choose Go over Elixir/Erlang for concurrency. Elixir's cuncurrency mechanisms are at least as good — and I would argue better — than Go's, and Elixir as a language has an expressiveness that Go lacks.
That said I agree with everything, Erlang pioneered in this space and has shown to scale very well[1] in a proven way over the last few decades.
[1] https://phoenixframework.org/blog/the-road-to-2-million-webs...
On a more serious note: I’m very wary of people that have discovered the one true language, framework, etc.
That’s how you end up with 100 lines of go instead a one line bash script. That’s how you end up with “java developers” that are more concerned with design patterns instead of actual working code. I could go on.
Learn about as many things possible, form your own opinions, choose the right tool for the job.
At a previous gig, a problem dev, who insisted on only using Erlang, was painted into a corner by eng at large who did not want to learn/support another language (Ruby, Python, JS, Java, and R were all over).
This dev eventually got fired, as they didn't really contribute much to "the big picture". Since their efforts were so limited in scope, their Erlang work was quickly replaced using the other languages, and consumers of the results never noticed.
YMMV. But that's a old standard that should probably die
At the same time, there is a sweet spot in popularity, when there is a very good quality/noise ratio in the library ecosystem, I'm not sure though, if rust's there at the moment.
A reliable recipe for 0 dependency Rust binaries so long as I stayed in the Rust ecosystem would be a good motivator to use it.
Also to answer your comment directly. Being mainstream != lots of help, resources, answers, samples, high quality/well maintained libraries. Being mainstream means that a lot of people have heard about you and a lot of people try using you / pick you up. Sometimes mainstream things do get to that place, sometimes you find yourself in an immense "the emperor has no clothes" ecosystem where everyone wants to use X because it's the cool/hot new thing. If you don't understand what the tool you want to use is good for and you forge ahead, most of the times, you will have a bad time.
Actually, if there's anything that someone fresh out of school learns in the industry, is that you do use things that are mainstream and really popular (in the particular niche you're targeting), because that's what your colleagues and management expect.
OTOH, when people come and say, "we'll rewrite this in X - it's the hot new thing, and it can do it all so much better, so don't worry about IDE support etc!", and push it through, the usual consequence 3-5 years later is a bit-rotting codebase that is hard to work on and maintain, because the people who pitched it have moved on, the tooling was never great and now doesn't even see bug fixes, and new developers on the team have to undergo a long initial ramp-up process to be able to do anything.
Sometimes it works out, sure. Usually when the hot new thing becomes mainstream eventually. But most of them don't, so unless you like to gamble, the safest bet is to wait and see and then adopt it. Let someone else be the guinea pig. The more immediate productivity gain is very, very rarely worth the pain.
We ended up not hiring; he refused to touch certain technologies that make up a core part of our stack (Node being the biggest issue), and he was honestly something of a massive tool -- on our take-home thing (takes most developers maybe a few hours) he limited himself to one hour, didn't get it done, wasn't even solving the right problem, and, when he sent in his solution... "It's ok, I know you won't get it, but that's OK."
It was a weird experience. But I got a nice lunch out of it. I'm still not sure what they got out of it.
It's a hugely important consideration. More devs, larger community, better support, more/better tooling, more libs, etc. If you don't think those matter then you're only concerned with pet/toy projects.
Ecosystem is not a binary proposition: either there, or not there. At some point the ecosystem becomes solid enough for some purposes.
Finally, if no outliers were ever a better choice than the status quo, the status quo would never change. Therefore, there are always some outliers that can be chosen for greater effect at the cost of accepting some perceived risk. Using tooling smack in the middle of the average zeroes the potential increase in effectiveness as well as the perceived risk.
Ease of hiring experienced developers should absolutely be a part of selection criteria, but of course it should not be the only one. What good is it going to do you when you picked Elixir/Scala/Rust over Python/Go/Ruby, you need to hire senior engineers who can hit the ground running ASAP, and you have limited resources/budget?
It's going to be harder to find them (especially if you're not in SF), it's a harder/longer initial learning curve if you hire senior engineers without prior experience, it's going to be harder to find non-seniors, you're going to have to pay more to get what you want...the list goes on.
also, the question you need to ask yourself is: do you want to build something with a technology you've selected and think it's the best or do you want to have someone that can pick the right tool for the job pick the tech? sometimes, not building something or various parts of something is more valuable that building something that you don't need fast.
a senior developer also gets to be picky in what stacks they want to work with. usually it's what they are familiar and comfortable with, or something similar to it
>also if you believe that people need years of use to be good in any language/tools/framework you need to figure out how to attract better people.
even the best engineers have ramp-up time when starting a new job that involves a new code base. that ramp-up time is increased significantly when it's a language that they aren't familiar with. feel free to convince me otherwise, im all ears
>sometimes, not building something or various parts of something is more valuable that building something that you don't need fast.
what about when it's not?
Note I don't really care about the answer to the above, I just wish as a profession we could get past the tribalism and boosterism and have rational technical dicussions about things that matter as opposed to banal declarations about 'expressiveness' etc.
I think Go is great, but I don't think describing parts of it as less expressive than some other languages is banal.
Expressiveness has a sweet spot, though. Too many keywords and constructs makes a language harder to learn, and makes it too easy for developers to build their own little weird worlds that discourages team work and lowers readability.
And right off the bat, the first thing a person notices is that there are two identical sub-libraries, mgl32 and mgl64, to work around the language's constraint that the core numeric type in the library cannot be parameterized at the language level without performance-losing reflection.
... oh. There's three. The one in mgl64, the one in mgl32, and the canonical one that a developer should edit to make changes. And they only all stay synchronized if the developer remembers to follow the contributor practice and run that gen script, which is not enforced by anything.
On a small project like this, not a big deal. But it's indicative of the over-arching problem of the approach go is necessitating here. There's noise here that a developer has to think around, and as a project scales up, that noise is going to become louder and trend towards intractable complexity.
If we as a profession are to "get past the tribalism and boosterism and have rational technical discussions", surely other languages/technicques like Pony, Haskell, Clojure, Kotlin, Scala/Java combined Akka etc. should be considered and discussed? The article reaches its conclusion much to easily.
With regards to expressiveness: Go is a lower level language and has fewer language constructs and abstractions than most other modern languages. This is by design, and many seem to appreciate that simplicity. I was simply stating a fact when I said Elixir was more expressive and did not intend to offend anyone. I seem to have done so regardless.
Deployment is getting better and you can just great a release in a docker image and deploy that like you would anything else. Obviously it's no way near as small (or simple) as FROM scratch is with Golang binaries.
Tooling is fantastic in some ways and poor in others - for example you can get an interactive IEx terminal running onto your Elixir cluster to debug issues, although I'm not sure about the other parts. Dependancy management is fantastic and something Golang struggles with. Not sure about other tools for Golang though!
The final thing I'd say is once you have a runtime that has Supervision and restarting of processes you never want to go back to worrying about what to do in the cases you haven't considered.
I'm wouldn't be sure of that anymore. For instance, Go has an official AWS SDK but Erlang does not. Go's been around for 8 years now and it is almost certainly significantly more popular than Erlang. It's been a while since I reached for a library for Go and couldn't find anything at all. (Though I have recently been in the "three libraries that all seem like 80% of the job is done with varying degrees of quality" situation. But you still get that in Erlang in similar places too, as far as I know.)
To be honest I feel you really will struggle in Golang to make software that is as reliable as Erlang/Elixir simply because the language is immutable and allows for concurrency by using many serial processes (Actor model) and has supervision of processes (let it crash) and also worth noting once you have used compile time macros the way Elixir does it you never want to go back to repeating yourself the way Golang forces you to. In fact I should write up my proposal for macros being added to Golang as an alternative to Generics...
If you are building something like Docker I'd argue Golang is maybe a more suitable choice but for Web software and stable concurrency Elixir is miles ahead.
Build: same, come fully ready out of the box.
Library: there is everything and you can use any erlang library for free. 35 years of production experience.
Tooling: see above. Everything to debug and instrument on the fly. Dynamic tracing for everything for free. Logger. Etc etc. Fully interoperable runtime dynamically for free. Advantage of using a runtime that has spent 35 years optimising for reliability in production.
So yeah. We could but then people would not understand. Erlang/Elixir have a decade of advance over Go for that kind of tooling and production-readiness
I don't believe you could reach the same raw performance that you have with go.
However it is an unfair comparison, BEAM processes do much more than coroutines.
These are the things that make it a brilliant language for use cases where it's well-suited. Not every language has to be a kitchen sink language like Java, thankfully. I like opinionated languages with well-defined strengths and weaknesses.
JITing the beast has been a want for a while, but there are also other paths taken right now which can provide speed boosts, among other a translation of the compiler to use SSA-representations.
I haven't made the comparison myself for a while but I suspect it's still very close.
https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/
It looks like Elixier ist by far less popular than the other discussed languages.
In this case though, Elixir is still way lower, at somewhere around 30th compared to Go's 14th.
[1] https://redmonk.com/sogrady/2018/08/10/language-rankings-6-1...
Everything has tradeoffs.