Re: [dev] [OT]: Go programming language

On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Kris Maglione <maglione.k_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 04:33:06PM +0100, Uriel wrote:
>>
>> Next you will tell me that because I said OO is evil, I must be
>> against function pointers. Go has no inheritance, and that is
>> basically the root of all OO evil (and inheritance is in mainstream
>> programming considered the defining characteristic of any OO
>> language.)
>
> Actually I made up the term "object-oriented", and I can tell you I
> did not have C++ in mind.
>        --Alan Kay

I am well aware of that quote (it is in my C++ quotes page too), but
99% of the people using the term "object-oriented" aren't, and the
only thing all generally assumed to be OO languages have in common is
inheritance.

Yes, from Alan Kay's point of view Go is much more object-oriented
than Java or C++, but that is not what people talk about and what I
bitch about when bashing OO.

>> C was never perfect, starting with the abomination that is the
>> preprocessor. I have been saying for years that it makes little sense
>> to write user space code in C when you can use Limbo, Go is a better
>> limbo that also happens to be closer to C as a systems programming
>> language.
>
> Limbo comes with too much baggage, namely a small OS that doesn't even run
> on x86_64 in 64bit mode. Aside from that, it doesn't run on bare hardware
> and so is orders of magnitude slowe than C.

There is Dis-on-a-chip ;P Plus it might be slower, but Inferno runs on
(for example) the Inferno DS much better than Linux, not needing an
MMU to run your OS is a really big plus.

Anyway, this is splitting hairs, I'm looking forward to an OS written
in Go that also doesn't need an MMU (which will mean all code will
have to be written in Go, but that is fine by me).

>> C always was, still is, and always will be, infinitely better than Java or
>> C++.
>
> Amen.

I don't expect Go to kill C, there will always be a place for a
portable assembler language, but Go will push C to the niche where it
works best, while C++ and Java should be completely obliterated.

uriel

> --
> Kris Maglione
>
> Are you quite sure that all those bells and whistles, all those
> wonderful facilities of your so called powerful programming languages,
> belong to the solution set rather than the problem set?
>        --Edsger W. Dijkstra
>
>
>
Received on Sun Nov 15 2009 - 16:19:30 UTC