3 ms·

It's almost like you didn't read a single word beyond the title of the initial post.

• dkersten 17y ago
  Its completely like I read everything but the last paragraph. If mahmuds suggestion of Python is Ok, then I don't see why mine isn't either. The languages I listed are great for parallel/concurrent programming, much more so than Go and if you need low level access, you can write C extensions for just those parts that require low level access. Go's concurrency support is weak, at best. Sure, its better than C (without libraries), but compared to other concurrency oriented languages, it doesn't really provide much. Other disadvantages are that Go is new and still under heavy development. If they decide to change something, then you're code gets obsoleted. You also have to use an immature toolchain, learn the intricacies of a totally new language and compiler and live without existing Go libraries. You could use C libraries, of course, but IMHO I don't see the value of using Go. Maybe in the future it can take on its role as "better C", but I don't believe its ready yet. If you want a "better C", try the D programming language. By the sounds of things, you don't like the archaic C-ness of the C/C++ languages. Honestly, I don't see Go as much of a step up (yet! I'm optimistic that it could fill in its role as a better, safer C in the future), hence suggesting languages with some top-notch concurrency support which have been proven (well, not Clojure afaik) to work well in highly concurrent networked environments. If you were to use erlang, you would get all its fault tolerance and code hot swapping facilities almost for free too. So.. no, I personally do not believe Go is ready for a serious project.