A few notes on choosing between Go and D for a quick project

[via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 16 March 2015 at 13:16:33 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
> The future is here already, but just not evenly distributed 
> (Gibson).  It hit Andrei's employer early, but I am not sure 
> Facebook is an edge case of no relevance to mortals.

Facebook is an edge case. Most computers run idle >90% of the 
time... If you need to complete something fast (but not low 
latency real time) you can do it in parallel paying by the hour, 
cheaper and more hassle free than ever before.

> whilst the free lunch from Moore's Law is over.

Not so sure about Moore's Law, keep in mind that Intel has very 
little pressure from AMD these days.

But faster/bigger things are out there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurogrid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memristor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field-programmable_gate_array

But these kinds of technologies are more expensive to develop for.

> That means you have to use a JIT or native code, and the latter 
> is not going to be C++, Go, or Rust for uses within the 
> enterprise that require rapid prototyping and iteration to help 
> answer dynamic commercial questions.

Not very specific, so hard to address, but factor in the 
increased development cost and you might see that it becomes 
cheaper to run it on a rented cluster using dedicated tools even 
if the code is running at half speed.

Average programmers are less and less capable of writing fast 
code... and the work it takes to write fast code is expensive. 
Not many are willing to pay for it, so in most cases it is 
cheaper to buy/rent better tools/hardware. But that's only 
because hardware is cheap compared to programmer time in most 
cases! If hardware was expensive then more people would be 
willing to pay for hand optimised programming?