On 05/16/2016 05:09 PM, Ian Cordasco wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Dmitry Tantsur <dtant...@redhat.com>
Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Date: May 16, 2016 at 09:55:27
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go
On 05/16/2016 04:35 PM, Adam Young wrote:
On 05/16/2016 05:23 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
On 05/14/2016 03:00 AM, Adam Young wrote:
On 05/13/2016 08:21 PM, Dieterly, Deklan wrote:
If we allow Go, then we should also consider allowing JVM based
languages.
Nope. Don't get me wrong, I've written more than my fair share of Java
in my career, and I like it, and I miss automated refactoring and real
threads. I have nothing against Java (I know a lot of you do).
Java fills the same niche as Python. We already have one of those, and
its very nice (according to John Cleese).
A couple of folks in this thread already stated that the primary
reason to switch from Python-based languages is the concurrency story.
JVM solves it and does it in the same manner as Go (at least that's my
assumption).
(not advocating for JVM, just trying to understand the objection)
So, what I think we are really saying here is "what is our Native
extension story going to be? Is it the traditional native languages, or
is it something new that has learned from them?"
Go is a complement to Python to fill in the native stuff. The
alternative is C or C++. Ok Flapper, or Rust.
C, C++, Rust, yes, I'd call them "native".
A language with a GC and green threads does not fall into "native"
category for me, rather the same as JVM.
MOre complex than just that. But Go does not have a VM, just put a lot
of effort into co-routines without taking context switches. Different
than green threads.
Ok, I think we have a different notion of "native" here. For me it's
being with as little magic happening behind the scenes as possible.
Have you written a lot of Rust?
Not a lot, but definitely some.
Rust handles the memory management for you as well. Certainly, you can
determine the lifetime of something and tell the compiler how the underlying
memory is shared, but Rust is far better than C in so much as you should never
be able to write code that doubly frees the same memory unless you're
explicitly using the unsafe features of the language that are infrequently
needed.
I think we're in agreement here, not sure which bit you're arguing
against :)
I'm with Flavio about preferring Rust personally, but I'm not a member of
either of these teams and I understand the fact that most of the code is
already written and has been shown to drastically improve performance in
exactly the places where it's needed. With all of that in mind, I'm in favor of
just agreeing already that Go is okay. I understand the concern that this will
increase cognitive load on some developers and *might* have effects on our
larger community but our community can only grow so long as our software is
usable (performant) and useful (satisfies needs/requirements).
This Rust discussion is a bit offtopic, I was just stating that my
notion of "nativeness" of Go is closer to one of JVM, not one of C/C++/Rust.
I guess my main question is whether folks seriously considered
PyPy/Cython/etc.
--
Ian Cordasco
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
