Because Go has built in primitives to make micro services.

The cleanest asynchronous io model that I have ever seen.

Simple serialization by default.

Did I mention the blazing fast compile times? Just that would make it way more “faster” to build your service in Go :)

And above all the language is simple with robust idioms.

Okay, I admit it is somewhat too simple, cough generics. And you won’t get C like performances for sure.

IMO, the goroutine model has the same synchronization challenges as multithreaded programming. For network code that is io bound, I find async/await much cleaner.

It's not that bad with channels. I suppose you don't have to worry about synchronization issues as much with async/await on Node since that's a single threaded environment, but async/await with something like C# isn't any less complicated in that regard that goroutines and channels.

Generally Go code isn't written like typical multithreaded code with synchronization unless you're really trying to optimize something.

async/await and goroutine is not same thing here.

When you talking about async/await, you're actually talking about asynchronization, and when you talking about goroutine, you're talking about parallel (which is a selling point of Go).

If the thread that responsible for executing the async/await blocks, then the entire progress/thread rely on that async/await will block. So if you want to comfortably use async/await, the entire call stack must be build for it, and that can be a huge challenge for the ecosystem of that language.

goroutine resolved that problem by spawn a new system thread so the rest of the progress will not be effected too much by the block. Go also resolved that problem by wrapping IO on top of an internal async API so basic IO operation will not cause actual block for too long.

Not necessarily, .NET and C++ task models (as done on Windows) rely on thread pools.

When a thread responsible for async/await needs to block, the task is parked and another one will get allocated to the running thread.

the effort to add async/await to Rust is ongoing, with an experimental RFC [1]. There is also a working implementation using procedural macros [2].

[1] https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2033 [2] https://github.com/alexcrichton/futures-await

If you want a compiled systems language with async/await you should take a look at Nim. Implemented fully using macros so you can even extend it (Nim's metaprogramming features are awesome).

Code generation sucks...Especially when it breaks...the more you use it, the more you try to avoid it.

well I think Code generation can suck. But it does not need to suck.

I like how grpc/protobuf work. And generating the code saving it in a repo and using it, is fine. for RPC-like stuff.

However, generating code with a compiler can actually suck. Like having your database layer (jooq like) generated while compiling so the code does not get checked in anywhere.

How come on every thread showing an example of how to do something in Rust there's a staunch C++ defender thinking the whole world should be using their language? C++ is a complex beast that due to its age has quite a number of disadvantages and no two codebases I've seen are the same - a measure of a language is its simplicity and C++ subjectively isn't thus. If you like C++ that's fine; doesn't mean you can't do it in Rust as well.

I think it's good that other languages are evolving that are safer, make it easier to do concurrency, have an idiomatic style and still are performant whilst removing legacy cruft. It's the natural evolution of things. Every C++ team I've been on debates every feature usage (e.g. auto/lambdas/etc) where one team's good code is another's bad idea due to sheer amount of legacy features vs new ways, what language constructs are good vs completely bad ideas (everyone has completely different opinions), how should I import libraries, what build tool to use, etc.

Because some of us actually like both languages, Rust and C++, and dislike the misconception some have about what C++ is capable of, because they only know how to write "C with a C++ compiler" kind of thing.

Any complex language that gets wide market adoption evolves into "complex beast that due to its age has quite a number of disadvantages and no two codebases I've seen are the same".

Even something like C.

> there's a staunch C++ defender thinking the whole world should be using their language?

That's in no way a fair characterization of the parent poster.

> Every C++ team I've been on debates every feature usage (e.g. auto/lambdas/etc) where one team's good code is another's bad idea due to sheer amount of legacy features vs new ways, what language constructs are good vs completely bad ideas (everyone has completely different opinions), how should I import libraries, what build tool to use, etc.

well yeah, and if you then ask these people to debate instead the use of $LANG instead of C++ you will get 100 times more debate.

The commenter to which you’re replying is arguing that the cognitive overhead in developing a microservice even in C++ isn’t so bad compared to, say, Go.

It doesn’t seem to be an advertisement for C++ or a condemnation of Rust.

> Why? Even writing micro service in C++ is dead simple these days

Apologies to the commenter then. I misread that to be a "why bother?" to the original blog post and do this instead. All tech has its pros and cons and trying other things can be good too.