Nimrod is a gem. Just needs a big company to host release parties and sponsor it.

I am convinced, a good part of Go's popularity is Google. As a language it is ok. Has good stuff in it. Quite often the argument for adoption is "Google is behind it, and it is becoming really popular". Which, is not completely irrational -- it is nice to have a large company throwing away perhaps years of quality full-time dev work at a language.

How come Google plays a good part of Go's popularity while the language per se is open-sourced and a fair amount of its contributors don't relate to Google at all? If you had observed what's happening around Go and Google since the language was released, you would have noticed that everything that happens inside Google is due to its creators motivation to push the language into the company rather than Google being "behind it". Dart on the other hand is backed by Google for good. Go? Except Google App Engine, i don't see it.

> How come Google plays a good part of Go's popularity [...] ?

Because it is the perception. It is enough for people to think Google is sponsoring Go to choose Go. They expect continued support and upgrades not a dead forgotten project 3 years down the road. Now how much does Google pay for and support Go, I don't have figures for you, but in this case perception is what matters most.

Also, doesn't it pay full time salaries for people who work on Go? Or primary creators work on Go on the weekends and holidays and/or most are not even affiliated with Google?

"They expect continued support and upgrades not a dead forgotten project 3 years down the road."

Go is open sourced for like the last 4 years and has its own separate community. There isn't such a possibility either down or up the road.

Quite. The idea that Google is "behind" Go is mistaken. The situation is that some people inside Google, some of them quite well-known and influential, are behind Go. There are also people not inside Google who are behind Go, and people who are inside Google who aren't keen on Go.

Therefore, Go is certainly not in the same position as things like Chrome or Android, where the company as a whole has a stake in their success.

> The idea that Google is "behind" Go is mistaken.

Does Google pay full time salaries and lets primary Go creators work on Go during the day?

Does Google blog about implementing and deploying Go based services?

Let's just put it this way, Google is a lot more behind Go than it is behind Nimrod.

Pretty sure there are developers at Google that like Nimrod but there is night and day difference between associated of Google and Go and Google and Nimrod.

"Does Google pay full time salaries and lets primary Go creators work on Go during the day?"

Have you ever read any interview or watched any presentation about Go by Rob Pike, Andrew Gerrand, or any other Go/Google engineer? If so, you wouldn't say that so easy. Just browse through Google Jobs and tell me if you find any Go job.

Well they do support Go on App Engine.

They do support Go for Glassware development, too, but these are just exceptions. If you search for jobs in Google you are not going to find any vacancy requiring Go programming, while you can find such vacancies in companies like Soundcloud, Cloudfare, Songkick, or Reuters. Also i would like to see Go natively used for Android development. Then i would probably reconsider the "behind it" statement.

The fact that Google blogs about rewriting some of it services in Go internally and it employs full time Go primary creators is worth 100x more than Soundcloud, Cloudfare and Songkick combined job boards.

These rewritings have been executed by Go's creators and core developers, not by common programmers.

eg. http://talks.golang.org/2013/oscon-dl.slide#1

The point is publishing that constitutes good advocacy and implies expected future support for Go. A lot of people given the choice between learning multiple languages will factor a company like Google supporting and using Go in their decision.

I am sure if Google published on it blog that it rewrote some of its services in Nimrod, there would be a bump in popularity.

Of course it is implied that there is future support for Go since there are serious people behind Go who are Google developers but its current popularity comes from various implementations of the language and "rewritings" which are translated into blog posts rather than blog posts per se. I hope the difference i am trying to point out is obvious.

Quite true. I doubt Go would be as talked here if it wasn't for Google.

Just check how far Go's ancestors (Alef/Limbo) went.

I guess this also means that Go wouldn't have the success it has if it wasn't built and used by a group of engineers who are used to the pitfalls of complexity and value tools that help you to get the job done and yet produce maintainable code.

This also means that it's not a good fit for everybody. It's certainly less exciting than most of the things that you find around; that's ok, that's the point. Less focus on the language, less focus on the magic and more focus on what you do with it.

The gold question is, would anyone care if the same engineers would be doing this work in another company?

I believe it would, if the other company obeys to this constrains:

* has a very large number of top-notch/rock star engineers and this fact is widely publicised * has a history of producing products with a very good quality (at least in the area under discussion, in this case reliability, performance and scalability) * has been on the market and successful for a long period of time * engineer opinion within the company carries weight and rules are not blindly dictated from above.

There are many other good companies, hiring extremely bright people. However, it's interesting to learn about what arises from the requirements of a company with the above listed characteristics.

I'm sure some people will just cargo cult everything googly, but there are also those who have a genuine interest and know when to apply those things if they make sense for them.

You just described Google by other words.

Or Sun Microsystems in 1996.

Or Facebook in a few years?