3 ms·
you'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 system
by logicallee 8y ago
you'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].