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

From: Kris Maglione <>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:50:06 -0500

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

Actually I made up the term "object-oriented", and I can tell you I
did not have C++ in mind.
        --Alan Kay

>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

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.

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


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 - 15:50:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Nov 15 2009 - 16:00:03 UTC