Hacker News Reader

Comment by 4ad | Hacker News Reader

It's not Google Go, it's simply Go, there's not a single Google reference on the web page and that's intentional. Looking at your previous posts here and on Reddit I see you are a notorious anti-Google troll that adds "Google" to "Go" so that your negative posts will be associated with both Google and Go.

It's absurd to call it Google Go when there's a first class GNU implementation that has been in development from the beginning, there's at least a closed source implementation and another distinct BSD license implementation in its infancy.

It makes even less sense than saying Apple LLVM, Juniper FreeBSD, or AT&T C.

View on HN

The number of times people have needed to tell this guy this is staggering.

Any recommendation on how we should google for Go related pages?

Golang or Go programming works fine. If searching for Google Go produces meaningful results, by all means, use it. I was merely complaining about referring to the project as such.

There's also this: http://go-lang.cat-v.org/go-search

'golang' seems to be what people are using.

go lang <thing-I'm-after> works quite well for me

I suppose you fail to see the irony in complaining about me writing "Google Go" because "Go" is an unsearchable name and then answering how to search for it with a custom search engine, needed because the name is unsearchable. Not to mention that ctrl-f doesn't support regular expressions so no ctrl-f "\<Go\>".

I only use that construction with ambiguous or unsearchable names (for instance I would also say Google Maps). I don't think I am along in using this form and I feel it is appropriate to refer to Google Go this way.

Frankly I fail to understand why this bothers you so much, as it clearly does. I would expect Google Go advocates to be delighted to have Google's good reputation for engineering imparted onto this language.

The "clearing up ambiguity" thing is bullshit. Nobody is going to fail to use context clues to figure out what is meant by "Go" in this discussion. Where such disambiguation is actually needed, "Go (language)" or simply "go-lang"/"golang" is preferred. You know, since they are not incorrect.

"Frankly I fail to understand why this bothers you so much, as it clearly does."

It is annoying because it is incorrect, because you have been corrected multiple times, and because what you are attempting to do is transparent as hell. I, and I imagine many others, do not have a strong appreciation for botched attempts at subtlety.

For instance:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/05/12/google.maps.androi...

Or:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps

> It is annoying because it is incorrect

Maybe some English professor, technical writer, or journalist reading this can chime in and explain how so. It seems to be the standard practice and I intend to use the best grammar and construction that I am capable of, as bad as that may be. This isn't Twitter.

It's incorrect for the same reason Apple LLVM or Juniper FreeBSD is incorrect, and it's bullshit because in a thread about Go, people know what Go refers to.

FWIW, the Windows, Plan 9, OpenBSD and NetBSD ports were done entirely by the community.

AT&T C? That's even less specific than Go. What about gccgo? Google/GNU Go? What about the commercial implementations?

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps

Yes, and then we see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(programming_language)

Give me a fucking break. You are clearly not worth engaging in discussion; I'm done.

An answer, by way of analogy.

When referring to a friend named "Edward" in a text to another friend planning Edward's surprise birthday party, you can probably refer to him as "Ed" or "Edward". You definitely don't need to refer to him as "Edward (Parent's SSN:12345...)" or "Edward (Philip's Son)". While these latter forms are less ambiguous (and more searchable, to boot), the context is more than sufficient to disambiguate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com