Why I Chose Go Over Python for My Next Project

Why I'm Learning Go Instead of Python for My Next Side Project

For years, Python has been more than just a programming language to me; it's been a trusted partner. It’s the digital equivalent of a cozy, well-lit workshop, filled with every tool I could possibly need. Need to whip up a quick script to automate a tedious task? Python's there. Need to build a complex web API for a client? Django and Flask are ready and waiting. Want to dabble in the arcane arts of machine learning? The giants of NumPy, Pandas, and Scikit-learn are at my command. Python is familiar, comfortable, powerful, and forgiving. It’s my default, my go-to, my old reliable.

So, when the spark of an idea for my next major side project began to glow, my hands instinctively reached for that familiar Python toolkit. The project idea is something I'm incredibly passionate about: a real-time, collaborative markdown editor. Think of a minimalist version of Google Docs, but specifically for developers, where two or more people can write documentation, brainstorm ideas, or even draft blog posts together, seeing each other's changes appear instantly on the screen.

The core challenge is right there in the description: "real-time" and "collaborative." This implies a backend that can juggle numerous persistent connections (likely via WebSockets), process a flurry of tiny updates, and broadcast them back to all connected clients with minimal latency. My Python brain immediately started sketching out a solution using `asyncio` and a library like `websockets`. It's doable, absolutely. But as I mapped it out, a quiet, persistent whisper started in the back of my mind. It was a voice of curiosity, asking, "Is your familiar multi-tool really the *best* instrument for this highly specialized, high-performance job? Or is it time to pick up the power tool that was purpose-built for it?"

That power tool, for me, is **Go** (often called Golang).

Hello, I'm Mohammad Shareef, and welcome back to The Developer's Compass. This post isn't another "Go vs. Python" benchmark battle. There will be no flame wars here. This is a personal, transparent look into a developer's decision-making process. It’s about the deliberate choice to step out of a comfortable ecosystem to embrace a new one, not because it's "better" in some absolute sense, but because its specific strengths seem to perfectly align with the unique demands of a challenging project. I want to walk you through the five key reasons that are pulling me towards Go, from the deeply technical to the purely personal.

Reason #1: The Concurrency Conundrum - A Tale of Two Models

This is the big one. The single most compelling technical reason for choosing Go for this project is its native, first-class support for concurrency. Handling thousands of simultaneous connections is the central challenge of my collaborative editor, and the philosophical difference in how Python and Go approach this problem is stark.

The Python Story: The GIL, `asyncio`, and a World of Coroutines

Python's approach to concurrency is powerful but layered with history. For true parallelism, where you want to leverage multiple CPU cores for a heavy computation, you typically use the `multiprocessing` module. For most web applications, however, the bottleneck isn't the CPU; it's I/O (Input/Output)—waiting for network requests, database queries, or reading from a disk. For this, Python offers `threading` and, more modernly, `asyncio`.

The challenge with `threading` in CPython (the standard Python implementation) is the infamous Global Interpreter Lock, or GIL. In simple terms, the GIL is like a "talking stick" for threads; only the thread holding the stick can execute Python bytecode at any given moment. This means even if you have 8 CPU cores, your CPU-bound Python threads can't all run at once. While it simplifies memory management, it's a bottleneck for true multi-core work.

This is why `asyncio` has become so popular. It uses a single-threaded, event-loop model to manage many tasks concurrently. With the `async` and `await` keywords, you can "pause" a task while it's waiting for I/O (like a message from a WebSocket) and let the event loop work on other tasks. It's incredibly efficient for I/O-bound applications.

However, `asyncio` has its own complexities. It can feel like it creates two separate "worlds" in your code: the synchronous world and the asynchronous world. Calling a synchronous function from an async one can be tricky, and using `async`/`await` can feel "contagious"—once you start, you often have to make everything it touches async as well. It's a brilliant solution, but it feels like a sophisticated system added *onto* the language.

The Go Paradigm: Goroutines and Channels as First-Class Citizens

Go’s philosophy is fundamentally different. Concurrency isn't a library or an add-on; it's woven into the very fabric of the language. Instead of OS threads, Go gives us **goroutines**. A goroutine is an incredibly lightweight function that is managed by the Go runtime scheduler. You can think of the Go scheduler as a master project manager who has a small team of workers (OS threads) and can efficiently assign tens of thousands of tiny tasks (goroutines) to them.

Starting a goroutine is syntactically trivial—you just put the keyword `go` in front of a function call. That's it.

go myFunction()

This simplicity is profound. It encourages you to think concurrently from the start. For my collaborative editor, I can immediately see the design: spawn a new goroutine for every single user's WebSocket connection. A server with 10,000 active users could have 10,000 active goroutines, and the Go runtime would handle it gracefully with very little memory overhead.

But how do these goroutines talk to each other safely? That's where **channels** come in. Channels are typed conduits through which you can send and receive values between goroutines. They provide synchronization and prevent the race conditions that plague traditional multi-threaded programming. This aligns with Go's core philosophy:

"Do not communicate by sharing memory; instead, share memory by communicating."

This model feels purpose-built for my project. I envision a central "hub" goroutine that manages the state of a document. Each user's connection goroutine would send incoming edits to the hub through a channel. The hub would process the edit, update the document state, and then broadcast the change to all other connection goroutines through their respective channels. This architecture is clean, safe, and leverages Go's greatest strengths. It feels less like I'm fighting the language and more like I'm flowing with it.

Reason #2: The Unforgiving Need for Performance

When you’re typing in a collaborative document, you expect to see your colleague's changes appear almost instantly. That perception of "instant" is measured in milliseconds. Any noticeable lag shatters the illusion of collaboration and creates a frustrating user experience. While Python is fast enough for the vast majority of web applications, this specific use case sits right on the edge where raw performance starts to matter deeply.

Compiled vs. Interpreted: The Startup and Execution Edge

Go is a compiled language. When you build a Go program, the code is translated directly into native machine code for the target architecture. This means when you run the executable, the CPU is executing instructions directly. There is no intermediate step.

Python is an interpreted language. When you run a Python script, the interpreter reads your code line by line, compiles it into bytecode, and then executes that bytecode on a virtual machine. This layer of interpretation, while offering flexibility, introduces overhead. This leads to two practical performance differences:

1. Startup Time: A compiled Go binary starts almost instantly. A Python application needs to fire up the interpreter, which can introduce a small but measurable delay.
2. Execution Speed: For CPU-intensive operations (like, perhaps, calculating the difference between two document versions to send an optimized "diff" instead of the whole document), Go's machine-code execution will almost always be faster.

Go's memory management is also a factor. Its garbage collector is designed for low latency, aiming for very short "stop-the-world" pauses. In a real-time system, a long garbage collection pause in Python could mean a noticeable stutter for all connected users. While this is an advanced topic, it's a consideration for building a truly robust system.

Again, this isn't to say Python is slow. It's incredibly fast, and its performance is often more than sufficient. But for a project where low latency and high concurrency are the primary success metrics, Go’s performance-oriented design provides a compelling head start.

Reason #3: The Safety Net of a Static Type System

I love Python's dynamic typing. The freedom to write code without littering it with type declarations makes for rapid development and clean-looking scripts. It lets you get your ideas down fast. But as a project grows from a few hundred lines to many thousands, that freedom can sometimes feel like walking a tightrope without a net.

I still have vivid memories of a bug in a previous Python project that took me half a day to track down. It turned out a function that was expecting an integer was occasionally being passed a string representation of that integer. The error only occurred under specific, hard-to-reproduce conditions and caused a silent failure deep within the system. It was a simple type error that a compiler would have caught in a fraction of a second.

Go is a statically typed language. You declare the types of your variables, function parameters, and return values, and the compiler verifies them before you can even run the program.

func updateUser(userID int, newName string) (bool, error)

Looking at that function signature, there is no ambiguity. You know exactly what it needs and what it might return. This has several profound benefits for a long-term side project:

• Bug Prevention: An entire class of common runtime errors is simply eliminated before the code ever runs.
• Improved Readability & Self-Documentation: When I come back to my code after a two-month break, the type definitions make it infinitely easier to understand the flow of data and the intent of the code.
• Safer Refactoring: If I decide to change the `userID` from an `int` to a `string` (UUID), the Go compiler will immediately show me every single place in my codebase that will break. It's like having a meticulous, tireless assistant checking your work. In a dynamic language, this kind of change is far more perilous and reliant on a comprehensive test suite.

For my collaborative editor, where data integrity is paramount, this compile-time safety net is a huge draw. It promises a more robust and maintainable application in the long run.

Reason #4: The Zen of Simplicity and Powerful Tooling

One of Go's most celebrated features is its intentional simplicity. The language has only 25 keywords. The syntax is clean, regular, and, some might say, even a bit boring. There's often only one "Go-like" way to do something. This isn't a limitation; it's a feature. It reduces cognitive overhead and makes code written by different developers remarkably easy to read.

This philosophy extends to its built-in tooling, which is a dream for solo developers and teams alike:

• `go fmt`: This tool automatically formats your code according to the official Go style guide. This single command eliminates all arguments about code style. Every Go project looks and feels familiar.
• `go test`: A simple yet powerful testing framework is built right into the language. No need to choose between `unittest`, `pytest`, or `nose`.
• Single Binary Deployment: This is a massive quality-of-life win. A Go application compiles down to a single, statically linked executable file. There are no dependencies to manage. You can just copy that one file to a server and run it. Contrast this with deploying a Python application, which typically involves managing virtual environments, `requirements.txt` files, and ensuring the server has the correct Python version installed. For a side project, this radical simplicity in deployment is a huge relief.

This entire ecosystem is designed to let you focus on writing business logic, not on configuring your environment or debating style choices. It’s a pragmatic, productive approach that is incredibly appealing for a side project where my time is my most valuable resource.

Reason #5: The Personal Challenge: Stepping Out of the Workshop

Beyond all the technical merits, there's a deeply personal reason for this choice. As developers, our greatest asset is our ability to learn. But comfort is the enemy of learning. By always reaching for Python, my "cozy workshop," I risked becoming a craftsman who only knows how to use one set of tools. My mental models for solving problems were becoming exclusively "Pythonic."

Choosing Go is a deliberate act of stepping into a new workshop where the tools are different. It forces me to rewire my brain. Concurrency isn't an afterthought; it's the starting point. Error handling isn't done with `try/except` blocks, but by explicitly returning and checking `error` values. This shift in perspective is challenging, but it's also invigorating.

Learning Go will make me a better Go developer, obviously. But I firmly believe it will also make me a better *Python* developer. It will give me a deeper appreciation for the trade-offs that language designers make. It will expose me to new patterns and new ways of thinking that I can apply back in my day job.

Furthermore, the Go ecosystem is dominant in the world of cloud-native technologies, DevOps tooling, and backend infrastructure—think Docker, Kubernetes, Prometheus, and Terraform. Gaining proficiency in Go opens up a whole new set of career opportunities and allows me to engage with a different, but equally vibrant, part of the developer community.

A Choice, Not a Verdict

I want to end by reiterating that this decision is not a verdict on Python's capabilities. Python is a phenomenal, world-class language that will continue to be a cornerstone of my technical toolkit. For data science, scripting, and a vast number of web applications, it remains my top choice.

But for this specific project—a real-time, concurrent, high-performance application—Go’s features feel like they were custom-designed for the problem domain. The decision is a beautiful blend of the logical and the emotional: the technical superiority of its concurrency model for this use case, combined with the personal desire for growth and the excitement of a new challenge.

The path ahead will be filled with learning curves and "aha!" moments. I’m sure I’ll miss Python’s expressive syntax and rich ecosystem of libraries at times. But I’m excited to embrace Go's simplicity, performance, and new ways of thinking. I can't wait to see what I can build, and I'll be sure to share the journey with all of you here.

---

What about you? Have you ever deliberately chosen a new language for a project to step out of your comfort zone? What was your experience? I'd love to hear your stories and thoughts in the comments below.