EvereQ » Blog Archive » Google “Go” become “issue 9″

»
S
I
D
E
B
A
R
«

Google “Go” become “issue 9″

November 19th, 2009 by evereq

Today I get a talk with my friend regarding new programming language emerged by Google with “interesting” name “Go”.

Actually we both agree that we don’t see any reason to invent another “low level” / “middle” level compiled programming language… with Nothing NEW inside (see notes at the end of the post)! Just reuse of best practices, but with a LOT of limitations compared with C++ for example (just take a look here for some comparison information – most impressive that Google decide: “Go does not have classes with constructors or destructors. Instead of class methods, a class inheritance hierarchy, and virtual functions, Go provides interfaces, which are discussed in more detail below. Interfaces are also used where C++ uses templates.”… very strange for me… I can agree with C# approach for such details, but seems Google approach is too much!!! I note sure is it really OOP or not if you have only interfaces in hands…. when I do everyday development in C#, at least few times per day I not happy that I don’t have true multiple inheritance, what developers will say about “Go” if they start use it everyday??? )!

Personally I think that if Google want invent some “own” programming language (and only in case if they really want OWN…) they need to take a look into high (or very high) level multi paradigm languages like F# or Scala (or at least on Groovy with his meta programming features for example) and does not invent another “c/c++” or “Python” inspired language !

But what is most interesting and curious is that Google give the name for new language exactly same like another person name his language few years ago! To be more concrete, go to the issue 9 page in google issues tracking page for new language:

“Issue 9:

I have already used the name for *MY* programming language”

Amazing! Just read comments! Ha ha ha! Never see something like this before regarding programming languages! Google took this name and even not “google” for it ! Amazing stupid mistake! Yes, even companies like Google with best and talented people made such stupid mistakes! Actually, I not sure that name “Go” anyway is a good name for such language (and not only me think this way – read comments to issue 9 to get many examples!)…

Even for me, with average (or even low) level of English it looks strange that something that they promote as “fast” have the name “Go” (as we all know most of things that “Go” is slow by default)… Why they not name it “Run” , if they want that this language actually “run” ?! Or like many people suggest “Goo” (from Google) ?

Anyway, it looks really curious……..

Hope this will just “push” Google to develop BETTER OWN language (it MUST be HIGH level or VERY HIGH level language for sure!!!) and probably select for it BETTER name!

Notes:
1) in this post I follow latest definitions for “low level” and “high level” languages… Sure long time ago, “low level” was assembler and C was “high level” language! But currently, it looks like languages like C become really “low level” also! You can check for example following Wikipedia article to get more information). After reading most of information on Go language website, I still not sure can we call this language “Object Oriented” for example… In most areas approach of Google looks minimum “strange”… Except maybe how they implement concurrency… Maybe I just need to try to code something on it to get better understanding?)
2) Please note that I DON’T describe “Go” language as “bad” language. Instead I just put it to “low level” or “middle level” where it looks perfectly! Sure Google will found A LOT of ways how to use this language (and I think maybe already found such ways – for example to embed it in Chrome – read more here) and will “push” usage of this language inside Google and sure outside! And Google really have resources to do this! And some people will probably LIKE new simple but speed language! What I just NOT happy is that this language is NOT really high level language (NO Generics for example, at least by now!). Sure it’s just first release, maybe Google will improve it… but Google likes “minimalism” style, so….. Anyway, let’s just wait a little! Maybe they change language name and Universe!

SteveMcQwark

Making it a high level language would defeat the purpose. The whole point is that its a systems language. Which means its lower level. That said, it contains many high-level-inspired constructs, and has shortcuts for common applications that have developed since C and C++ were formulated.

You comments about inheritance show that you didn't look into how the language works. Basically, you don't have to worry about inheritance. You just program your object (which is declared as a struct type) with the functions it needs. Then, when you want to use a variety of different types of objects, you just create an interface defining what members the type needs to have, making it a lot easier to create of objects that behave similarly in certain ways, since you don't have to set up an inheritance structure.

Interfaces exist in other languages, but they tend to be explicit, which means that each time you need to use a different subset of functions, you need to add an interface to all the different types you want to use, which can get clunky. Instead, in Go, you just define the interface when you need it. It makes it somewhat of a compile time explicit duck-typing, which allows the development process to flow more smoothly as in high level languages while still being type safe.

When you want your new type to be some other type plus some, you can just declare an anonymous (no name) object of that type in your new type. Then, if there's no ambiguity (I don't know how the language deals with ambiguity), you can treat all the members of the anonymous object as members of your new type.

As for the name, its appropriate, because one of the main features of the language is the 'go' keyword, which executes the following command concurrently with the code in which it was called. The concurrent computation is called a goroutine, and the compiler decides whether/when it needs to be a thread, or whether it can just be multiplexed (pretty much meaning it coexists with other routines in the same thread, which takes less resources).

Pretty much every suitable name has been taken by some pet project somewhere that never went everywhere. And McCabe's language didn't show up in search results until recently, since its become a hot topic. Besides "Go" and "Go!" are no more identical than "C" and "C#". Further, the guy named his book "Lets Go!" (note the bad grammar), which is almost identical to a multitude of other books titled "Let's Go" so he clearly didn't give a bother to name collision. Finally, he clearly never intended his language for widespread usage, since you have to buy his book for 15$ in order to decide whether its worth learning. There is no other way of assessing the practicality of his language, which means it will always be overlooked beside the heap of alternatives that you can evaluate for free, or are already established.
EvereQ

Hi Steve! Thanks a lot for your comment!
Here are some my arguments:
1) System language in my point of view does not need to be "low level" like you describe... It MUST include low level constructs (pointers, memory allocations etc) - this I agree, but it can be high level in other functionality, simply because current software is really complex and using high level language simplify development of COMPLEX system applications.
2) About inheritance and other stuff - take a look into Groovy way for example! It include ALL high level (and low level sure thing) functionality from Java (like abstract classes, class inheritance etc) PLUS flexibility of dynamic language! For me seems it much better way, than restrictions that currently exists in Go language design... Think about huge class hierarchies like used in Spring or in .NET framework for example! How you will construct them in Go? ;-) Sure maybe Google currently does not want to implement "rich" language library (framework), but in future it for sure will be big limitation that prevent usage of language in many projects! Even in case if you will use Go to develop RIA applications (and this is what Google want as initial step - embed Go into Chrome), rivals like JavaFX or Silverlight support HUGE class / interface hierarchies powered by high level languages like Java or C#. I don't see any sense again to invent language with LESS functionality then Java or C# with only one exception if you invent some new paradigm after procedure, OO or functional paradigms! Unfortunately for me seems Google does not invent new paradigm in Go language :(
3) Regarding language name. long time ago, most used language construct was "goto" (I not sure maybe it was invented in Basic first maybe not), but languages was not called "goto" anyway :) And it was right, as now seems nobody actually use this keyword :) It's joke sure thing, and "go" keyword will be used in in Go language with better idea than "goto" in Basic, but for me it looks not so right to call language "Go" just because of keyword name! A lot of people complain that name "Go" will made search too complicated and it looks correct. Regarding "Go!"... Let's take a look into another example. Some big company decide to invent new language and without any goggling they call it "Jav". What will be reaction from Sun? :) In this case, it is not Sun owner of "Go!", it's simple "small" man who try to made something and even publish BOOK! (think about it!!! He publish Book!!! Not everybody who invent some language for educational purposes publish book about it) ... I don't tell that Google can't call language "Go", I just think first they need to ask this small man "can we call our language same way like you call yours" - and for sure this "small" man will tell "yes" (probably after get some "not" small money, probably for free if he is really enthusiast - does not meter). The problem that Google DO made mistake and now DO need to do something with it! And looks like Google need to fix this issue 9 the way that now not only this "small" man will be happy but also about 1000 people that made own comments on issue 9!

Anyway, I was glad to hear another opinion and probably a lot of people will agree with you!
In any case Google do Good job, they try to invent something and this is very important - as more alternatives we developers will get, the better will be our everyday job :)
SteveMcQwark

My point about the inheritance was that they implemented it in spite of themselves :) A struct type containing an anonymous object behaves like it inherited from the type of that object. :) They just also put effort into reducing the need for massive class hierarchies by loosening up interfaces a bit to better resemble duck-typing while remaining type safe.

I think they believe they've come up with something new with their particular fusion of high level and low level elements, and in their implementation of goroutines, their typing system, etc. Of course, an original idea doesn't usually exist, but rather, a progression, and we only see something being "new" when we don't seen a large portion in between

And I do agree the name 'Go' is a bit dumb, being a common two letter word :P
EvereQ

Yes, sure I understand your point - thanks a lot - it make sense to exists!
Unfortunately for me it NOT looks like something new (at least in languages I know same concepts already exists and used widely), more so personally I prefer approach with extra type annotations like in C# 4.0 to support Duck typing only in places where developers explicitly want to do this (just take a look how Go "support" Unit testing (http://golang.org/doc/go_faq.html#How_do_I_writ...) and absence of assert keyword! Not sure developers will write "safe" code, at least before Go will get own JUnit analog or Google think up some new testing methodology for testing as well??? ;-) ).
And again - for me it looks like better approach to support full featured class / interfaces hierarchies with dynamic features / Duck typing when developers want or to choose strategy like Groovy - extend already existed language with ability to run all existed frameworks / tools from old language (Java in case of Groovy).
Also If developers really want to make less coupled hierarchies (in places where it make sense, like different aspects, services etc), they can use DIP (IoC) to inject at run-time what they want and where they want! Look for example into Grails framework and the way how Groovy + Spring give you ability to inject services (http://grails.org/doc/latest/guide/8.%20The%20S...) - I think this is EXACTLY what developers want in programming languages in addition to classical / interface hierarchies, inheritance etc - ability to do injection quickly and declaratively. Why? Because developers can CONTROL this process (using DSL or even XML if needed), instead of "fixed, but not safe injection" like in Go structs :)
Again, as always it's just my personal opinion - same like exists thousand developers that does not like static typed languages or dynamic typed languages and seems there is no sense to "argument" around this :)
Sure also I agree with you that in most cases "we only see something being 'new' when we don't see a large portion in between", but sometimes people invent something SO unique that developers / regular people start real BUZZ around this... It was like this with Ruby on Rails for example (now Grails does not made same buzz for some reason, even so for me it looks little more promised because of ability to reuse of all Java stuff that we already have) or with iPhone or with Gmail long ago etc.
And sure I also agree with you that Google invent some "unique" combination of "fusion" - If they do not do this they will be really in big trouble (i.e. if in addition to usage of already existed language name "Go" they also reuse same syntax, libraries from another language... but it will be not Google I think...).
The question and problem only is that this "fusion" for me can be much better and can have much better name ;-)
That was idea around my post actually! :)

blog comments powered by Disqus

» Substance: WordPress » Style: Ahren Ahimsa