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

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Dmitry Maluka <dmitrymaluka_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 03:47:46AM +0000, Aled Gest wrote:
>> I totally agree that the C pre-processor sucks. It's ill thought out
>> and needs replacing.
>
> Any proposals?

You don't need to replace something that is useless and evil, as Go
shows. Just like Plan 9 didn't "replace" root and suid (or at least
not directly).

The C preprocessor has been pretty much ignored by any decent C
programmer for decades now, getting rid of it in Go is a non-issue.

uriel

>
>> However, going back to what you were saying about
>> you being able to subdue Lisp's syntax with macros, any language that
>> requires macros to hide its syntax is poorly designed.
>
> Please don't say a language is poorly designed if you don't know that
> language.
>
>> Macros are there to aid programming.
>
> They are so in Lisp.
>
>> You shouldn't need to create a new language
>> out of macros to get the job done, otherwise you might as well just
>> use another language in the first place.
>
> The problem is that no language can anticipate any your need. And then
> you are forced to go and write ugly C macros or something similar.
>
>> Are you denying that Lisp's primary concept is that it treats
>> everything as a list?
>
> Yes. Bad books on programming treat Lisp as a "functional programming
> language with list as the only data structure" but it isn't.
>
> Its primary concept is the transparency of the program's abstract
> syntax tree (due to the syntax simplicity).
>
>
Received on Sun Nov 15 2009 - 05:32:15 UTC