Go makes arbitrarily large codebases feasible. I find Python to be exponentially more painful as codebase size increases. For personal projects this is fine, but for industrial use cases Go has a significant competitive advantage.
For me, this is the consequence of a reasonable static type system. Without generics and the current error handling story, it almost feels like Go makes large codebases necessary in the projects I've used it, compared to other statically typed languages such as Kotlin, Java, Rust, and C#.
Go 2 on the other hand looks like it will solve this problem, and I eagerly await its release.
In my codebase at work there are a few cases where code is (poorly duplicated) that would benefit from a proper generic solution. But I don’t expect go2 to significantly reduce our codebase size, even if we replaced the aforementioned components.
I agree that some form of static typing is critical to scale a codebase, or an ecosystem. Let’s also not forget the importance of a packaging system with robust version management. Go modules and proxy.golang.org are also critical to Go’s success at (code) scale.
DetroitThrow|5 years ago
For me, this is the consequence of a reasonable static type system. Without generics and the current error handling story, it almost feels like Go makes large codebases necessary in the projects I've used it, compared to other statically typed languages such as Kotlin, Java, Rust, and C#.
Go 2 on the other hand looks like it will solve this problem, and I eagerly await its release.
intortus|5 years ago
I agree that some form of static typing is critical to scale a codebase, or an ecosystem. Let’s also not forget the importance of a packaging system with robust version management. Go modules and proxy.golang.org are also critical to Go’s success at (code) scale.