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

On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 9:58 AM, frederic <fdubois76_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm quite picky, and I have yet to see anything I don't like in Go,
>
> So now closures are not an issue anymore?

There is nothing wrong with closures per se, hacking them up on top of
C is what is wrong.

> And you don't see the OO
> non-non-support (sic) [from the FAQ: "is Go an OO language?" "-Yes and no"]
> as a problem? Beware, if you use Go's methods you might write OO-style code
> without noticing.

If you can't push your head out of your ass and beyond silly
terminology, it is pointless to argue with you.

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.)

>> Having Go, there is no excuse to write user space code in C ever
>> again; as for kernel space, we will see (specially once they deploy
>> the new concurrent garbage collector), rob said he would like somebody
>> to try building a kernel in Go, this would be fun, and might even
>> produce something quite useful.
>>
>
> So now C isn't the perfect programming language any more?

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.

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

uriel
Received on Sun Nov 15 2009 - 15:33:06 UTC