3 ms·
"Systems programming language" has multiple, equally-valid definitions. This no-true-Scotsman rules lawyering about language classification is the least interes
by sagichmal 8y ago
"Systems programming language" has multiple, equally-valid definitions. This no-true-Scotsman rules lawyering about language classification is the least interesting possible discussion about a programming language.
- logicallee 8y agoyou're right it's not an interesting semantic distinction, but it's weird to have people going around saying "but it is not (and does not intend to be) a systems language" when it's an explicit design goal for Go and explicitly mentioned in line 1 of its specifications. OK, not a very interesting discussion.
- sagichmal 8y agoIt's not intended to be a [Rust-style] systems language [in which one might implement a resource-constrained operating system]. It's absolutely intended to be a [Google-style] systems language [in which one might implement a large distributed data system].