>>54441392
>is Go going to become the next numbero uno programming language
no

>The key point here is our programmers are Googlers, they’re not researchers. They’re typically, fairly young, fresh out of school, probably learned Java, maybe learned C or C++, probably learned Python. They’re not capable of understanding a brilliant language but we want to use them to build good software. So, the language that we give them has to be easy for them to understand and easy to adopt.
>– Rob Pike 1

>>54443174
I see no problem there

>>54443174
>> >The key point here is our programmers are Googlers, they’re not researchers. They’re typically, fairly young, fresh out of school, probably learned Java, maybe learned C or C++, probably learned Python. They’re not capable of understanding a brilliant language but we want to use them to build good software. So, the language that we give them has to be easy for them to understand and easy to adopt.
>– Rob Pike 1

I don't get the point... could you explain it a little further ?

>>54441392
yes
jimplush.com/talk/2015/12/19/moving-a-team-from-scala-to-golang/

>>54443174
large development teams (>20) do well in non-complex languages

>>54443174
So google only hires Pajeets now?

Go and C is a good combination. I'd learn rust but it's sjw.

>>54444444
wew

>>54444444
>using anything by Google
>ever

>>54444512
Hardly. Go is good at what it was designed for, that is, it's good at concurrent programming on the network.

File: glo man.jpg (172 KB, 667x667) Image search: [Google]

172 KB, 667x667

>>54441392

glogang

>>54443174
with googlers he means the people who work at google. and in that talk he also says the same for C++ and python and JAVA. so fuck off please

>>54443586
On the face of it I have zero clue what the code sample highlighted in this article does.

https://gist.github.com/jiminoc/ea827cfaf0bb8b07df6b#file-sample-scala

The numbers are the same.