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

From: frederic <>
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:33:08 +0100

>> 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.

That's basically what you replied to me in an other thread:
"I'm pretty sure that if C featured closures, Anselm and many others
would promptly and cleverly hang themselves with them."

I asked you why, but you didn't answer. Can you elaborate? Can you?

>> 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.

However, you did start to argue.

Oh, I see: cheap rhetoric.

> Next you will tell me that because I said OO is evil, I must be
> against function pointers.

No; you probably confuse me with the other guy who says things like:

"I can much more strongly state that [OO and XML] are total
worthless bullshit that should *never* be used."

That said, IIRC you often agree with this guy, hence my question.

> 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.)

Why do you think inheritance is the root of all evil?

That's an important issue, given that Go offers " ways to embed types
in other types to provide something analogous—but not identical—to
[from "Effective Go"]

>>> 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,

Oh sorry, I believed you told me C was perfect for Unix programming on IRC
the other day. I apologize, I don't know how I could possibly confuse you
with the brain-dead C fanboy I talked with a couple of month ago.

> starting with the abomination that is the preprocessor.

So... don't use it?

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

What about Perl, Python, Ruby, Basic, Befunge, Lua, PL/I, Smalltalk, C#,
Io, Ada, Scheme,
R, Self,...

Seriously, so what? What does it mean it's better? Better at what?
Received on Sun Nov 15 2009 - 18:33:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun Nov 15 2009 - 18:36:11 UTC