4 ms·

You're misinformed. Russ Cox took the time to explain why LLVM wasn't chosen: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8817990 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id

• arcticbull 7y ago
  I'm not sure that refutes my statement. All the post indicates is they didn't know LLVM. They also didn't try to learn LLVM, or hire someone who did know LLVM. I think that's what I'm suggesting.
  • m45t3r 7y ago
    Which is perfectly fine explanation. I mean, it is their programming language, not yours, they can do anything they want. And while Go compiler may not be perfect, it works well enough.
    • arcticbull 7y ago
      Indeed but that doesn't make it a good decision, and it certainly doesn't make it "undervalued technology" -- and that's what we're discussing here, isn't it?
      • m45t3r 7y ago
        Well, I concur with the points from the article, since while I don't like Golang as a language I really like its tooling (BTW I am really craving for a more powerful language that compiles to Golang. And specially I like the focus in Golang to produce truly static binaries (they're not even linked with libc!). And while Golang may not be the fastest language out there, it is fast enough for most use cases. I mean, Python is fast enough for most use cases, and Python is one or two orders of magnitude slower than Golang. So yeah, I think their compiler decisions are fine. They may or may not be the best decisions, however the article is not talking about the compiler part of Golang, so yeah it can still talk about "undervalued technology".