On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 04:29:11PM -0700, Andrew Gwozdziewycz wrote:
> Given this effort, and the fact that they've gotten pretty damn far
> towards being usable, I'd say you can't *possibly* argue that "they
> all *epic-ly* [sic] fail at the kernel step." (emphasis mine).
Like Hurd.
> Of course, you didn't mention rust in your initial list of "unperfect"
> languages....
rust is better than go, or the other way around?
Fight! (while I go code something in a subset of C).
:)
--
Sylvain
Received on Tue May 03 2016 - 01:57:39 CEST