3 ms·

A TCP/IP stack isn't a stringent litmus test for a systems PL. So you can loosen your own standard for what comprises a systems PL, but Go fails more rigorous s

A TCP/IP stack isn't a stringent litmus test for a systems PL. So you can loosen your own standard for what comprises a systems PL, but Go fails more rigorous standards. Everytime. Even Rob Pike says you're wrong and he's certainly a sympathetic character towards Go. All of this was hashed out years ago upon Go's release, and the Go team took down the "systems language" moniker. That was the end of it. Google knows it's not going to fulfill stringent litmus tests for a systems-language. We'll review the subject again if the folks at Google are brazen enough to ever add it back to the website. Now Rob doesn't have to call management and let them know it's not for systems programming, Rob & Google already know it's not. He said so himself. You're the only one in the dark on that front at this point.

sagichmal 9y ago
Rob never said Go wasn’t a systems programming language. He said the pedantic rules lawyering that plagued the internet after the initial claim was made — the tedious pablum that you’re continuing to propagate — was all noise and no signal, and made the claim not worth claiming anymore. For fuck’s sake, give it a rest.
- BuckRogers 9y ago
  >Rob never said Go wasn’t a systems programming language. Yes he did. He said it's a cloud-infrastructure language[0] and that he regrets calling it a systems language. That's why he took systems language off the Golang site. >For fuck’s sake, give it a rest. Why would we when we're right? Why don't you give it a rest, you've long been proven wrong. You know, usage of the English language and the terms within matters. Claiming you have a systems language when you don't introduces confusion. You can loosen the terms all you want to but it will never change the fact that GC languages can never meet the strictest measure of a systems language. That's why it matters. No one should be apologizing to you because you don't like the facts. [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBbv1ej0fFo&feature=youtu.be&t=6m44s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBbv1ej0fFo&feature=youtu.be...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
pjmlp 9y ago
Unlike yourself I don't care what Rob says, because at the end of the day what matters is what people on the street are using Go for. Developers don't have to ask him permission or blessing for whatever they are trying to do with Go. Google is using Go in system components in Fucshia, and the new GPU debugger for Android is also written in Go. You are in the one in the dark about using GC enabled systems programming languages. I have real life experience using them and have seen it works. I lost interest on Go due to its spartan design, but certainly will encourage anyone trying to use it to build an OS from scratch, regardless of what is written in a web site. "They did not know it was impossible so they did it" -- Mark Twain
- BuckRogers 9y ago
  The reason Rob's statements matter is because he's the authority on Go. If you had been a primary inventor of a new language, I'm guaranteeing you'd feel entitled to decide what it is and is not. Not have "pjmlp" debate endlessly over something you had already stated was simply not true. A lot of things work, doesn't mean they meet strict litmus tests (which matter, because definitions matter), nor does it mean it's a good idea.
  - pjmlp 9y ago
    When a language is set loose to the world it belongs to its users, and whatever they decide to do with it. Anyone is free to just fork Go and do whatever they feel like with it, regardless of what Rob thinks. That is the beauty of MIT license. So given that Oberon is accepted as a systems programming language in computer science, with multiple published papers and books across two decades, heavily used in OS research at a couple of European universities during the 90's and an influence to Go, with hardware and compilers still being sold for systems programming, although in small scale. What are the actual technical features Go is lacking that makes it impossible to be used for systems programming, given Oberon's influence on its design?
    - BuckRogers 9y ago
      Your concerns have already been answered. Most succinctly stated by two points. 1) A lot of things work, it doesn't make them good ideas. 2) Go doesn't meet the strictest litmus tests of a systems language, never did, never will. It's only a systems PL only if you relax your definition of what it is. Go's own creator says it's not and if any one person is the authority on this topic it's him. There are platforms that meet all definitions, those are definitely systems PLs.

sagichmal 9y ago

Rob never said Go wasn’t a systems programming language. He said the pedantic rules lawyering that plagued the internet after the initial claim was made — the tedious pablum that you’re continuing to propagate — was all noise and no signal, and made the claim not worth claiming anymore. For fuck’s sake, give it a rest.

BuckRogers 9y ago
>Rob never said Go wasn’t a systems programming language. Yes he did. He said it's a cloud-infrastructure language[0] and that he regrets calling it a systems language. That's why he took systems language off the Golang site. >For fuck’s sake, give it a rest. Why would we when we're right? Why don't you give it a rest, you've long been proven wrong. You know, usage of the English language and the terms within matters. Claiming you have a systems language when you don't introduces confusion. You can loosen the terms all you want to but it will never change the fact that GC languages can never meet the strictest measure of a systems language. That's why it matters. No one should be apologizing to you because you don't like the facts. [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBbv1ej0fFo&feature=youtu.be&t=6m44s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBbv1ej0fFo&feature=youtu.be...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

pjmlp 9y ago

Unlike yourself I don't care what Rob says, because at the end of the day what matters is what people on the street are using Go for. Developers don't have to ask him permission or blessing for whatever they are trying to do with Go. Google is using Go in system components in Fucshia, and the new GPU debugger for Android is also written in Go. You are in the one in the dark about using GC enabled systems programming languages. I have real life experience using them and have seen it works. I lost interest on Go due to its spartan design, but certainly will encourage anyone trying to use it to build an OS from scratch, regardless of what is written in a web site. "They did not know it was impossible so they did it" -- Mark Twain

BuckRogers 9y ago
The reason Rob's statements matter is because he's the authority on Go. If you had been a primary inventor of a new language, I'm guaranteeing you'd feel entitled to decide what it is and is not. Not have "pjmlp" debate endlessly over something you had already stated was simply not true. A lot of things work, doesn't mean they meet strict litmus tests (which matter, because definitions matter), nor does it mean it's a good idea.
- pjmlp 9y ago
  When a language is set loose to the world it belongs to its users, and whatever they decide to do with it. Anyone is free to just fork Go and do whatever they feel like with it, regardless of what Rob thinks. That is the beauty of MIT license. So given that Oberon is accepted as a systems programming language in computer science, with multiple published papers and books across two decades, heavily used in OS research at a couple of European universities during the 90's and an influence to Go, with hardware and compilers still being sold for systems programming, although in small scale. What are the actual technical features Go is lacking that makes it impossible to be used for systems programming, given Oberon's influence on its design?
  - BuckRogers 9y ago
    Your concerns have already been answered. Most succinctly stated by two points. 1) A lot of things work, it doesn't make them good ideas. 2) Go doesn't meet the strictest litmus tests of a systems language, never did, never will. It's only a systems PL only if you relax your definition of what it is. Go's own creator says it's not and if any one person is the authority on this topic it's him. There are platforms that meet all definitions, those are definitely systems PLs.