> Go and Erlang have some differences, and I found particularly interesting that pretty much all the issues they have with Erlang don't apply to Go often because of how Go avoided what might seem superficially like a 'feature' in favor of "raw" simplicity.
Some of what they discuss simply isn't available in Go, like OTP, so I wouldn't count that as a "win" for Go. Other things like 'heart' are things I want, given that it's going to be for a semi-embedded system.
That's a good video, but all languages have gotchas and things to watch out for, especially mature ones. Go has some advantages in a 'fresh start': some of the biggest Erlang warts are actually the language itself; the syntax, records, some things like that that are just kind of ugly.
For a product currently in development, "should be solved by a future release" is probably too far in the future to matter much. "pretty good shape" sounds a bit worrisome for a semi-embedded device where updates via the internet are not necessarily going to be an easy proposition. 64bit is going to eat more memory, something we'd prefer to avoid if at all possible.
Some of what they discuss simply isn't available in Go, like OTP, so I wouldn't count that as a "win" for Go. Other things like 'heart' are things I want, given that it's going to be for a semi-embedded system.
That's a good video, but all languages have gotchas and things to watch out for, especially mature ones. Go has some advantages in a 'fresh start': some of the biggest Erlang warts are actually the language itself; the syntax, records, some things like that that are just kind of ugly.
For a product currently in development, "should be solved by a future release" is probably too far in the future to matter much. "pretty good shape" sounds a bit worrisome for a semi-embedded device where updates via the internet are not necessarily going to be an easy proposition. 64bit is going to eat more memory, something we'd prefer to avoid if at all possible.