6 ms·

Well I hope you succeed. Competition is good and in the "Go" space, there's need to be more competition to demonstrate the technical flaws of Go, or just give a

• pjmlp 10y ago
  There is no need to demonstrate anything. Go is a good enough replacement for C, for user space applications. With some improvements, even for more lower level tasks. As for the flaws, anyone that had the pleasure to work with the Algol and Wirth family of languages is well aware of them.
  • mapcars 10y ago
    >Go is a good enough replacement for C, for user space applications. Are you sure you are not describing Rust?
    • pjmlp 10y ago
      No, please research Oberon and read the Project Oberon book.
    • nickpsecurity 10y ago
      Go is based on Oberon: a family of simple, safe languages that were used to write OS's. Started with Modula-2 in Lilith project. At one point, the machines ran ETH University. By Oberon, they got a GC but could also do unsafe manipulations for hardware interfaces or performance. Forced you to put it all in modules declared SYSTEM ("unsafe"). The neat thing about the OS was that it and its compiler were simple enough for students to understand that they regularly ported or improved it a few months at a time. It's also one of the most, well-documented OS's in existence. http://www.projectoberon.com/ http://www.projectoberon.com/ That Go is basically a modified Oberon means Go, currently or with some modification, could be used for low-level, systems code up to operating systems. Even with a GC since the Oberon OS's are written in GC language. Most recent, graphical one is A2 Bluebottle if you want to look it up.
      • groovy2shoes 10y ago
        Since when is Go "based on Oberon"? Pike himself claims that it was "based on C", with obvious influence from his own work on Squeak and Newsqueak.
        • nickpsecurity 10y ago
          The last history people here gave me had him describing the joy of programming in the safe, fast Oberon-2. And wanting to re-create that with the new language. Resulting language is very Wirth-like in style, esp simplicity, compile speed focus, and safety. Modified with C syntax, concurrency from Limbo, and I dont recall what else. Clearly way closer to Oberon-2 or Modula's than to BCPL like C copied/extended.
        • pjmlp 10y ago
          The method definition syntax, package model and unsafe package are taken from Oberon-2. You missed that Robert Griesemer is also part of the Go team.
          • groovy2shoes 10y ago
            I didn't miss that at all. According to Pike, it was actually Griesemer's idea to start with C.
            • pjmlp 10y ago
              Wasn't aware of it. In any case, my view is a bit different, I see Go as a mix of an AOT version of Limbo mixed with bits of Oberon-2.
              • groovy2shoes 10y ago
                I definitely "feel" the Limbo influence, but I've not worked with Oberon-2 (only the original Oberon, and only a bit), so I didn't pick up on it. I do "feel" the C influence as well, though.
  • the_duke 10y ago
    Go is really more of a Java than a C replacement.
    • FreezerburnV 10y ago
      This sentiment is actually very interesting to me. I had (/have?) the same kind of sentiment toward Go, but when I spent time playing with it recently I realized just how close to C it actually is. Enough so that when someone says it's a C replacement, I can actually see where they're coming from/somewhat agree with them. And the reason for that is that Go actually seems to follow a lot of C conventions pretty darn closely, and not provide as high level of an interface as Java does. You're much more likely to work in raw "arrays" (aka: slices) in Go than you are in Java, it doesn't have generics, "classes" are structs that are defined very similarly to structs in C, error codes as return values, etc. The main differences that are adding to C as far as I'm currently aware are interfaces, the ability to add a "method" to a type (which is effectively the same as calling a function with a type as the first argument, except in the case of interfaces), and the garbage collector. All of which, to me, feel like a kind of evolution on C. A different path instead of C++ in a way. While people would argue that having a GC ruins what C is good at, it can also be viewed as a version of C that's much more memory safe, while still allowing you to dip into very low level if you need to. ...there's probably some other stuff I could say, and probably more coherently, but it's early (for me) and I kind of just wanted to get that thought out there. I hope it's at least a bit thought-provoking, or something. If not, well, my apologies for rambling at you ;)
      • geodel 10y ago
        Maybe it makes sense. It is replacement of Java because convenient GC, decent runtime and networking/http/ssl/xml/json libs comes standard. This is where is Java is mostly used as backend server side stuff. It is replacement of C as in low memory usage, decent level of control over memory layout, no overengineered abstractions, no classes, no generics, no exceptions, fewer concepts to grasp etc. It does not need VMs and generates executables to directly run on machines.
      • pjmlp 10y ago
  • camus2 10y ago
    > As for the flaws, anyone that had the pleasure to work with the Algol and Wirth family of languages is well aware of them. I just don't want to have to deal with a bunch of second guessing judgmental jerks anymore. Nobody in the Crystal community is going to go after me for something "not idiomatic" I published.
    • pjmlp 10y ago
      Go is not on my top 10 languages that I would use, but still I see some value on it being used. What I meant with that remark was that those languages already had fast toolchains and were more expressive. So in this regard I also appreciate Crystal, specially since RubyMotion decided to focus on mobile.
    • geodel 10y ago
      Ok, for my purpose I would be far less interest in programing language which has no idioms, no critical feedback, that is basically a mutual admiration society.