My thanks to all ... This thread has provided me a wealth of interesting and varied ideas regarding Go user community viewpoints on Go governance.
For what its worth here's my 'two cents' worth ... In the end, every Go user has only one 'Go' he/she can choose to use....Regardless of how, why and who etc. determines future directions of the language, the only real alternative a user has is to accept Go 'as is' or move on to something else ..If you choose to stay with Go, you have to accept it for what it is , not what you'd like it to be. If you decide to stay with Go, this doesn't mean you have to stop advocating /supporting changes to the language and/or changes to how the language is governed. .... As an aside, I'm one of the 'golang-nuts' who support adding a modernized version of the C ternary operator to Go, but many of my other golang-nuts think I'm 'nuts' I also vote 'no' regarding generics..... If a Go user decides to move on to something else, you'll still end up with governance issues .. At one extreme you can move on to Python which is governed by the BDFL Guido van Rossum philosophy. Did van R do great things for Python ? ...Let me answer this by saying that with I never got past the nightmare I experienced trying to install PIP, NumPy and SciPy packages on my Windows box. At the other extreme you can move on to to something like C++ with a system of governance that can only be described as "Wild West" For me the Governance issue is very much secondary to my more major issue which is the availability of packages I need to support the apps I want to develop. For me, this is where Go ranks way above the other languages I've tried over my many years as a developer. When I first moved over to Go the first package I wanted to get up and running was the Go "image" package. It took me less that an hour to port one of my major C++ libPNG based image processing apps over to Go. This was enough to make me a Go believer considering the many months I wasted developing PNG image processing apps using C++ and libPNG. I could go on and on regarding similar experiences I've had with other Go packages, but my point is that, for me, Go's system of package management and its spectrum of available Go packages is what makes Go superior to other languages. I'm am old timer with lots of C++ apps that I developed over the years before I switched over to Go. I've ported many of these apps to Go, except for those that require too much time for me to convert, or those that require packages that are not available in Go. So for now I have to live with both Go and C++. Go governance is important but, for me it is much less important than package availability and the ability to get packages up and running quickly. So my my major issue is involves adding more packages to Go, especially math-sci-engineering oriented packages so I can avoid having to switch over to Julia (or worse yet FORTRAN) when I need to develop these kind of apps. Yea, I've tried packages available on https://godoc.org/gonum.org/v1/gonum but I find many of these Go packages are primitive compared to those available in C++ (and in some cases even FORTAN) Any way, that's my "two pennies" worth On Thursday, May 23, 2019 at 9:18:25 AM UTC-4, L Godioleskky wrote: > > https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/programming/GoIsGooglesLanguage > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/71cdb184-5d19-4ec7-bac8-c5131f3361f4%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
