Is Go a meme? Am I wasting my time and should I just stick to progressing my skill in the java/jvm ecosystem for general backend.
>>100382543Totally different situatuions IMO. Go has a lot of use cases but less maturity. Java has near zero use cases but if you are looking for work there is infinite amount of jobs in updating, extending, or maintaining existing Java systems.Learn both
>>100382543Yes it's a meme, but it's nicer to use than Java.
>>100382782>java has near zero use cases, except for the countless businesses that use it
>>100382782idk about "near zero" i was more so talking about if the benefis of go is worth choosing it over java for both career and personal projects.
>>100382543Why do different programming languages exist in the first place?
>>100382850YesYou use Java because there is already so much written in it that needs maintainence, updates etc. Using it for a completely new project is not recommended to the point of it being utterly brain dead to do so.
>>100383069Tons of career opportunities in Java and some in Go.
"Learning" a programming language takes a cup of coffee and a free afternoon. Why do we have 5000 threads every day of someone asking if a programming language is "worth learning?"
>>100384998To prevent quality relevant discussion, hopefully driving users away from 'dissident adjacent' platforms like 4chun
No gonna lie, I'd rather use Java or Kotlin than ever touch Go again.
>>100384998delusional midwit>>100386335ok go make a good thread, just 2 more weeks until I see it in catalog, right?
>>100383658You've no clue. From maintenance perspective building an enterprise app in Java is the best choice. There's so much talent available you'll never run the risk of missing a worker, or being dependant on some unicorn. These are not your hobby projects, they need to run for the next 15 years.
>>100384998Learning spoken languages takes a cup of coffee and a free afternoon. Why do we have 5000 threads asking if a language is worth learning?
>>100389002There are many better choices than Java for new enterprise systems. Even C# is a better choice despite it just being Microsoft Java.
>>100390407the other anon's rightyou're clueless
>>100390633Not reallyDeveloping a new system at this point in Java takes longer than in most other environments. So it's only a good idea if you build on something that you get for free, typically something that you already have.That there is talent available is a moot point, there is talent available for JS too but I'm not telling you to make a new enterprise system in Node either.
>>100383148Different use cases. Some are better for this, some are better for that, most overlap a lot in what they do.
>>100391415>Developing a new system at this point in Java takes longer than in most other environments.care to substantiate your claim?
>>100392566The project I am working on right now uses Java and we keep running into things that would be easier to do in other ways. Several times we have noticed that even C# would be better.Anecdotal evidence but then again, empirical evidence is just a statistical mass of anecdotes
>>100393541>we keep running into thingsskill issue
>>100393769Yes, the choice of Java was unskilled. I agree
>>100382543We do both at my company.Go isn't a meme, neither is Java.You'll get 10x the job opportunities in Java, but learning Go on the side is nice. Why can't you do both? Go is a tiny language by design.Java is brilliant for large backends. Its got a staggeringly large ecosystem and the frameworks have been battle-tested to hell and back, with performance that crushes all dynamic languages. It is very explicit and easy to refactor, test and reason about.Go's syntax is very minimal, made purposefully simple and easy to pick up. Go's throughput is about the same: the distinction is that Go's startup time is staggeringly fast, and it has an extremely low memory usage. This is well-suited for "serverless"(managed) runtimes like AWS Lambda.TLDR: Have to choose? Pick Java. Can spare some time? Give Go a bone.Java w
>>100382543sex
>>100387617Anon, can you elaborate? Why you don't want to program in go?
>>100393541>Java and we keep running into things that would be easier to do in other waysJava offers lots of ways to do things.Maybe you aren't doing them the easy ways.I'm not saying that I don't have a collection of kluges to deal with some design follies but I've yet to run into something that I haven't gotten around.Spill 'em. Maybe we know the better way. Maybe you'll teach us the trouble we haven't yet encountered.
>>100395111hm okay thank you
>>100382543Thighsex.Sex with her thighs.
>>100395984I wish I could. Java comes with its set of expected things (ways of abstractions, limitations, etc). Some of these help, some not. Yes you can "get around" them, or you can bite down and do it the way it's "supposed"to be done - but both takes time and that's what I am talking about.Another project at the company I am at now was a 185k lines Java (line count includes SQL though but that's a small fraction of the whole) system that had 15 guys working on it. It was replaced by some tiny (less than 20k lines) thing written in typescript, C and Go by two people. Most, say 90% of the functionality, covered, with IMO better maintainability.
>>100382543>"i am learning--"><"oh wow say it say it!">"[language name]"
>>100398317Sounds like you have a problem with lack of familiarity, for which you blame the language.Lines of code do not reflect on maintainability. Coupling and cohesion are much more significant, though you can't just put a number on them.I would rather have conventional Java verbosity over short-handing and over-primitiving everything like in C. What I definitely don't want is Java written by people with an aversion to OOP - that's when you end up with actually bloated codebases and awful, unmaintainable code.
>>100384998The language, sure. The stlib, compiler directives, macros, tools, and shit, no.
>>100399261>The stlib, compiler directives, macros, tools, and shit, no.You're right. That might take up an entire weekend.
>>100398821No, unfortunately I have been stuck with this bullshit for far too many years - there's too much work in Java, and people pay too well to avoid it.What I meant when I said more maintainable relates more to code quality, even if locs have a lot to do with it. Or rather, the amount of abstraction etc., as it the time it takes to understand a new codebase is affected by its size. Not as in "it takes longer to read it", because of course you don't need to read it all. It's more a matter of the more code there is, the more people who have touched it across the years, etc., the more things you need to understand to not fuck up things for the *next* guy working on the code. It doesn't really matter if everyone in the team is a great programmer. Any codebase of that size, existing for that long and having been worked on by that many people will be a bit... You know.
>>100399993You're basically describing technical debt, which is something that will happen with any language.As far as abstractions in legacy Java codebases go, which I happen work a lot on, from my experience the most common fault isn't overengineering of abstractions, but actually avoiding them and instead going with a bunch of linear and procedural methods with a shitload of ifs and elses, not to mention smells like Primitive Obsession.I would also not blame Java for lack of code quality - the Java community actually has quite a lot of activity regarding refactoring and improving code quality, even stuff like Clean Code™. I actually never heard about any other languages having any activities or guidelines relating to code quality.
>>100400480You can use for example SOLID in many languages, such things are usually presented in Java though.I agree about technical depth but what I said isn't to be seen as about the language itself but about the state of working in it right now.
