4 ms·

> except in that it will make go less 'simple' to read and understand. Which probably will defeat the point of using Go... its main selling point for me it is

by elcct 10y ago

> except in that it will make go less 'simple' to read and understand. Which probably will defeat the point of using Go... its main selling point for me it is its simplicity. If they keep making it more difficult to work with, I might just end up going back to C++

tree_of_item 10y ago
Really? Go would need to add a lot more than aliases to reach C++ levels of complexity. I honestly think you're just being dramatic here, there's no way Go catches up to C++ in that respect any time soon.
- majewsky 10y ago
  My favorite metric for language complexity is: How many distinct Turing-complete languages exist in this language? On this metric, Go scores 1 (just Go itself), and C++ scores 3 (C preprocessor, C++ itself, C++ templates).
  - bbatha 10y ago
    Go scores infinity actually. Go generate is a part of the language, which means that you can bring your own Turing-complete language to the party. Reflection especially with plugins, are essentially another language that is even more difficult to track down than macros (or templates). Though you can at least write Reflection using go.
    - Vendan 10y ago
      but go generate isn't a part of the standard build process. If we go to that level, I can just say "most things that use C++ have a Makefile, so that's infinite too".
  - gue5t 10y ago
    C preprocessor alone is not turing-complete; you have to repeatedly apply the preprocessor (until you get a fixpoint or decide the program won't halt) to perform arbitrary computation.
- elcct 10y ago
  I get the feeling that C++ is becoming simpler to use with each edition. Perhaps some day if Go will be adding features such as this, they will meet half way through :)
  - mrec 10y ago
    That may be true of "the currently recommended subset of C++", but I doubt that many big legacy C++ codebases are written in that subset. I don't think the language as a whole is getting any simpler.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by elcct 10y ago

tree_of_item 10y ago

Really? Go would need to add a lot more than aliases to reach C++ levels of complexity. I honestly think you're just being dramatic here, there's no way Go catches up to C++ in that respect any time soon.

majewsky 10y ago
My favorite metric for language complexity is: How many distinct Turing-complete languages exist in this language? On this metric, Go scores 1 (just Go itself), and C++ scores 3 (C preprocessor, C++ itself, C++ templates).
- bbatha 10y ago
  Go scores infinity actually. Go generate is a part of the language, which means that you can bring your own Turing-complete language to the party. Reflection especially with plugins, are essentially another language that is even more difficult to track down than macros (or templates). Though you can at least write Reflection using go.
  - Vendan 10y ago
    but go generate isn't a part of the standard build process. If we go to that level, I can just say "most things that use C++ have a Makefile, so that's infinite too".
- gue5t 10y ago
  C preprocessor alone is not turing-complete; you have to repeatedly apply the preprocessor (until you get a fixpoint or decide the program won't halt) to perform arbitrary computation.
elcct 10y ago
I get the feeling that C++ is becoming simpler to use with each edition. Perhaps some day if Go will be adding features such as this, they will meet half way through :)
- mrec 10y ago
  That may be true of "the currently recommended subset of C++", but I doubt that many big legacy C++ codebases are written in that subset. I don't think the language as a whole is getting any simpler.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]