3 ms·

I get the feeling the Go language creators defined the Go language syntax in many cases so that it explicitly looks different than the corresponding C syntax. W

I get the feeling the Go language creators defined the Go language syntax in many cases so that it explicitly looks different than the corresponding C syntax. Why? (Yes, I know Rob's and Ken's history with regards to C.)

frou_dh 11y ago
Lucky for you there's an article explaining exactly that: http://blog.golang.org/gos-declaration-syntax http://blog.golang.org/gos-declaration-syntax --- I like the map. Here's the rules for Conway's Game of Life as a nested map: var cgol = map[state]map[int]state{ alive: { 0: dead, 1: dead, 2: alive, 3: alive, 4: dead, 5: dead, 6: dead, 7: dead, 8: dead, }, dead: { 0: dead, 1: dead, 2: dead, 3: alive, 4: dead, 5: dead, 6: dead, 7: dead, 8: dead, }, }
- johansch 11y ago
  I read that as arrogance. Before C, naturally no-one knew C. Before Go though, tens of millions know C. They are casually throwing away all of that familiarity in the name of elegance. I think this is what might mean that Go doesn't "win".
  - frou_dh 11y ago
    For someone who can already program, such things are trivial to learn. If you class doing basic design work and taking time to document it as "arrogance" then I'm afraid you may be suffering from negative mindset.
  - myg204 11y ago
    > throwing away all of that familiarity in the name of elegance That looks like a good deal to me! :)
  - jesstaa 11y ago
    It's important to note that a lot of C programmers don't really understand the C declaration syntax anyway. Most are familiar with the simple cases, very few are familiar with how to declare complex types. I can barely read this: void (signal(int, void (fp)(int)))(int); I can read this easily: func signal(int, func(int)) func(int)
- pekk 11y ago
  That type declaration is easily as unreadable as any "pointer to function returning pointer" declaration in C.
  - hahainternet 11y ago
    What nonsense, where is there any remote ambiguity? Where is it even slightly unreadable?
  - brobinson 11y ago
    Reads pretty clearly left-to-right to me: map[state]map[int]state -> a map of state keys pointing to maps of int keys pointing to states
    - frou_dh 11y ago
      "map of int to string" map [int] string "map of state to map of int to state" map [state] map [int] state In Rich Hickey terminology, it seems people reject that it is simple (non-interwoven) because it does not strike them as easy (familiar / close to hand). ( ...Any excuse to link to this excellent presentation: http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy )

frou_dh 11y ago

Lucky for you there's an article explaining exactly that: http://blog.golang.org/gos-declaration-syntax http://blog.golang.org/gos-declaration-syntax --- I like the map. Here's the rules for Conway's Game of Life as a nested map: var cgol = map[state]map[int]state{ alive: { 0: dead, 1: dead, 2: alive, 3: alive, 4: dead, 5: dead, 6: dead, 7: dead, 8: dead, }, dead: { 0: dead, 1: dead, 2: dead, 3: alive, 4: dead, 5: dead, 6: dead, 7: dead, 8: dead, }, }

johansch 11y ago
I read that as arrogance. Before C, naturally no-one knew C. Before Go though, tens of millions know C. They are casually throwing away all of that familiarity in the name of elegance. I think this is what might mean that Go doesn't "win".
- frou_dh 11y ago
  For someone who can already program, such things are trivial to learn. If you class doing basic design work and taking time to document it as "arrogance" then I'm afraid you may be suffering from negative mindset.
- myg204 11y ago
  > throwing away all of that familiarity in the name of elegance That looks like a good deal to me! :)
- jesstaa 11y ago
  It's important to note that a lot of C programmers don't really understand the C declaration syntax anyway. Most are familiar with the simple cases, very few are familiar with how to declare complex types. I can barely read this: void (signal(int, void (fp)(int)))(int); I can read this easily: func signal(int, func(int)) func(int)
pekk 11y ago
That type declaration is easily as unreadable as any "pointer to function returning pointer" declaration in C.
- hahainternet 11y ago
  What nonsense, where is there any remote ambiguity? Where is it even slightly unreadable?
- brobinson 11y ago
  Reads pretty clearly left-to-right to me: map[state]map[int]state -> a map of state keys pointing to maps of int keys pointing to states
  - frou_dh 11y ago
    "map of int to string" map [int] string "map of state to map of int to state" map [state] map [int] state In Rich Hickey terminology, it seems people reject that it is simple (non-interwoven) because it does not strike them as easy (familiar / close to hand). ( ...Any excuse to link to this excellent presentation: http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy )