"Exotic tech" is the most amusing ad-hominem insult I've heard in a while. Erlang has more users than Go, at least, and more companies you could name off the top of your head have Erlang deployed somewhere (Github and Heroku, for just two.)
Also, Google doesn't have "unique requirements." They have a unique set of overlapping, pretty common requirements.
Some requirements in that set (e.g. serving data on dl.google.com) could be solved perfectly well by Erlang, and could have been for years, but can also now be solved perfectly well by Go. That they are now being solved by Go is likely an effect of the "Golang advocacy group" that has formed at Google.
Others can't be solved by Erlang, but can be solved by Go (e.g. CPU-bound matrix-multiplications for PageRank index calculation), or vice-versa (e.g. deploying new Google Talk daemon code without dropping the XMPP connection.)
I'm not saying Google could have used Erlang for everything. I'm not even saying there's not a place for Go. Just that Erlang has been around for a long time filling nearly the same niche as Go, and if Google are really rewriting all this software for the sake of switching to a language that is more apt for the problem-domain, then they could have done that years ago, without having to develop their own little language to do it with first.
Plenty of sophisticated users have taken a long hard look at Erlang and chosen other tech, for a variety of good reasons. I guess Twitter is a bunch of NIH bumblers for passing on it as well?
Go clearly has a pretty different set of design priorities, not the least of which are static typing and native code compilation. I'm inclined to give the people running Google's infrastructure the benefit of the doubt in making these choices.
Hey, don't group me in together with the downvoted guy here. I agree that Google have their own reasons to pick their own tech.
I'm just saying that Erlang was probably a better solution than C++ for some of the things they were doing, and they could have switched to it years and years ago. They might then have created Go, and switch from Erlang to Go for those same projects. There'd be nothing wrong with that. I'm just surprised they were using C++ of all things to begin with, before rewriting in Go.
I would say Google has a couple of fairly uncommon requirements: ridiculous scale and the fact that even a brief outage is world news.
In terms of "rewriting all this software", I wouldn't say it's at all for the sake of switching to Go. It would be more accurate to say "well, we need to rewrite this thing anyway because it's no longer scalable or maintainable. Let's give Go a shot instead of C++/Java)"
Fairly uncommon compared to your everyday website sure. But I can think of hundreds of companies that have ridiculous scale and brief outages would be newsworthy:
Airline bookings, Stock exchanges, Betting markets, Postal services, Major websites (Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, LinkedIn), Online Games, Video services, Payment gateways, Banks etc.
Scale in and of itself isn't the basis of a sufficient argument though. You can write software at that scale in Visual Basic if you have billions of hexcore machines at your disposal.
Also, Google doesn't have "unique requirements." They have a unique set of overlapping, pretty common requirements.
Some requirements in that set (e.g. serving data on dl.google.com) could be solved perfectly well by Erlang, and could have been for years, but can also now be solved perfectly well by Go. That they are now being solved by Go is likely an effect of the "Golang advocacy group" that has formed at Google.
Others can't be solved by Erlang, but can be solved by Go (e.g. CPU-bound matrix-multiplications for PageRank index calculation), or vice-versa (e.g. deploying new Google Talk daemon code without dropping the XMPP connection.)
I'm not saying Google could have used Erlang for everything. I'm not even saying there's not a place for Go. Just that Erlang has been around for a long time filling nearly the same niche as Go, and if Google are really rewriting all this software for the sake of switching to a language that is more apt for the problem-domain, then they could have done that years ago, without having to develop their own little language to do it with first.