Re: [dev] Languages that suck (was "Note On Webkit Versions")

From: Frostyfrog <>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2016 12:21:05 -0600

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:29 AM, FRIGN <> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 May 2016 11:12:08 +1000
> Timothy Rice <> wrote:
> Hey Timothy,
>> A more experienced developer replied that in fact Go has comparable speed
>> to C but does not lead to the same memory management challenges, thus
>> should usually be preferred. It appears that most interest in C these days
>> is from people who need to work with Arduinos.
>> So, while we're on the (off-)topic of comparing the suckiness of various
>> languages, what do people here think about Go?
> thank you for bringing that up!
> I'd jump into Go right away if it wasn't for the binary sizes. Go may have
> comparable speeds to C and makes a lot of things much simpler to do, but
> the binary sizes are just insane. They'll address this in the upcoming
> versions, but until then, I'll not look into it.
> Once the day comes and a hello world goes below 800K (400K, ...), I'll
> definitely look into it.
> Cheers
> --
> FRIGN <>

I'd love to use Go. When using the vim-go plugin, programming becomes
a breeze. However, my main issue is the fact the I can't use *.so in
native go and I can't build .so files from go code. :S At least, they
don't make it easy in the slightest, you'd have to dive into C in
order to use them. The file size is a good thing to point out though
:) It means that as I develop for the Pi or the CHIP that I will have
to consider those limitations as well...
~ Frostyfrog ^.^
Received on Mon May 02 2016 - 20:21:05 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon May 02 2016 - 20:24:12 CEST