upvote
Efficient code means code with a large amount of embedded assumptions. Code that's more generic is almost always less efficient.

Go is about as far as you can "go" to the efficiency end without becoming Rust. It's a low-overhead language (like C) but with a GC that ensures memory safety. If you want to manage memory yourself and still prove safety it gets very complicated, as we see in Rust.

reply
OCaml fits your bill. Super fast compile times and also very fast runtime.
reply
It always feels like OCaml is on the verge of becoming the perfect language.

Expressive and type safety of a functional language, without the odd semantics of Haskell, where laziness can make performance difficult to predict and purity can make simple things like IO difficult to understand.

Does it still lack easy to use concurrency primitives?

reply
OCaml 5 + https://github.com/ocaml-multicore/eio

I' just starting OCaml, so can't really compare, but it seems a good progress there.

reply
> Both are important for LLM, why can't we have a high level, simple language that is also robust, efficient and fast? =)

I think many variants from Rust can be stripped to make it simple, especially in type system, which is way more complicated than go.

reply
I dont think we need simpler types for agentic coding though. We need compiler speed. I guess those are probably related to some degree though.
reply
It depends if you are full vibe-coding mode or still try to understand your codebase.

LLM can generate very cryptic rust code.

reply
Goose?
reply
Swift
reply
If I want simplicity and maintainability, I’d pick Kotlin over Go. If I want speed, I’m picking Rust over Go. Why would I ever pick Go? It’s the best at nothing.
reply
It's surely better than Kotlin in simplicity and maintainability. It also doesn't tie you to the JVM.
reply
What if you want a single language that's pretty fast while simple and maintainable?
reply
Recently I stumbled upon https://crystal-lang.org/ and I love it!

It's really great fun to build stuff in Crystal, I don't have anything prod-grade yet to say how it scores there but the community seems to be happy about that too.

reply
Crystal is slow to compile. There is a variant of Crystal that compiles a lot faster. But I forgot its name. Need to dig it up when I get back home.
reply
I agree, the compiler is slow but I don't mind much, or better, the fact that I find building maintainable programs much easier outweights that downside massively in my case.
reply
Then you pick C# which is both faster and simpler than Go.
reply
Simpler it definitely is not. Better, yes I would accept that. C# is complex though.
reply
didn't that language have like 150 keywords 10 years ago, it probably has 500 keywords now
reply
I like C# but simpler? I don’t believe so.
reply
C# may be easier but it is not simpler than Go
reply