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

Go troll someone else.

uriel

On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 7:33 PM, frederic <fdubois76_AT_gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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
> subclassing"
> [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 - 19:14:48 UTC