35 ms·

Featherweight Go

252 points by 4ad 6y ago

sseth 6y ago
The talk by Philip Wadler is one of the most insightful I have heard : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq0WFigax_c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq0WFigax_c In brief, they are following a process of stripping Go to the most basic possible syntax, and then adding generics (Featherweight). Then they will add more features back and build up to the full language, ending with Cruiserweight where channels will be addressed. The generics proposal builds on interfaces rather than contracts. Wadler sees Go occupying a unique space in terms of supporting "open supertypes" in the sense that in Go we do not have to declare a struct to be of a particular interface type it is automatically derived based on the methods defined on the struct. This allows a proposal which allows Go to be extended tp solve the "expression problem" first defined by Wadler in 98. I really hope these beautiful ideas turn out to be workable - I am sure Go will gain immensely if they are well thought out.
pansa2 6y ago
Is that a jab at Haskell in the very first paragraph? > Today [Go] sits at position 12 on the Tiobe Programming > Language Index (Haskell sits at position 41).
- dddbbb 6y ago
  One of the authors, Philip Wadler, contributed heavily to the design of Haskell. So I presume it's friendly joking.
- frej 6y ago
  Authors wants to bring types to where people are. Simply justifying their work.
pjmlp 6y ago
The irony of going back to Featherweight Java, done in 2001. At least some work is being done, even if "This is the beginning of the story, not the end".
- jlouis 6y ago
  I don't think this is so ironic after all. Featherweight Java is an idealized language, small enough for doing experiments. These experiments often involve the necessity of a formal proof. But being a small language, still capturing the crux of the full language, greatly simplifies the problem space. Featherweight Go serves the same purpose: find the core. Give the core generics. Then you have a good chance at implementing generics for the full language. Most languages which end up with type parametrization do so when the language is small and somewhat pliable. Neither Java nor Go did, even though both languages had plenty of prior work in the area. Hence, you have to "reconstruct" a world in which there is such a small language such that your experiments run fast.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Except that these kind of experiments contributed to Java generics, being made available 3 years before Go 1.0 was given a green light. Which is why Go had already a good example to learn from on how not to do language design.
    - eeh 6y ago
      Are you suggesting all new typed languages have generics? What makes you so sure there isn't room in the design space for a typed language without generics? As much as I like generics, Go's popularity is a success: programmers have spoken, and they value other things more than generics. Hindsight is 20/20, and even this isn't a commitment to introduce generics in Go.
      - jdub 6y ago
        "programmers have spoken, and they"...'ve done quite a lot of work to get the benefits of generics without language support. You can pretty much look at any large Go project (famously Kubernetes) and see a workaround of some shape or form.
        smarterclayton 6y ago
corty 6y ago
Fingers crossed: hopefully this is a step towards generics in golang. Up to now it always seems to have been one step forward, two steps back (or rather "wait another few versions")
parhamn 6y ago
There’s also a generics implementation on a branch of the go repo. I’m most curious how they perform on compilation speed assuming a big project makes decent use of generics. I doubt golang would merge anything that causes significant slowdown. And I don’t blame them, the only reason I don’t dread TypeScript dev given its slow compile times is you can typecheck async and strip the typing information for the hot reload.
- fyfy18 6y ago
  Don't ever try Scala. I work on a mid-sized CRUD application, and everything we need to recompile from scratch it takes 10 minutes. Typescript and Go are amazing in comparison in that department, but I miss the stronger typing of Scala.
  - logicchains 6y ago
    >Don't ever try Scala. Don't ever try C++. I work on a medium-sized low-level C++ application, and every time we need to compile from scratch it takes over two hours on a single core. Even with distributing the compilation out across over a hundred cores the fastest it can get down to is around 20 minutes.
    - Iwan-Zotow 6y ago
      how come hundred cores is only speedup of ~6?
      - IshKebab 6y ago
        On large C++ projects there are usually a ton of steps that can't be perfectly parallelized. Linking is usually single threaded, you might have dependencies that are way less than 100 CPP files. CMake is single threaded and very slow. Lots of projects have custom Python scripts for code generation or whatnot - all single threaded.
      - gonzo41 6y ago
        You can only say the alphabet one way, starting from A and ending in Z. Some tasks can't be parallelized. I expect a lot of those cores wait for critical paths to execute.
journeeman 6y ago
There's an upcoming talk by Philip Wadler on this paper on June 8 - http://chalmersfp.org/ http://chalmersfp.org/ YouTube channel where the talk will be streamed live - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiGOzKde1rlvzEB7J73gvrQ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiGOzKde1rlvzEB7J73gvrQ
todotask 6y ago
I'm curious on this part, "Although monomorphisation is widely used, we are one of the first to formalise it.", which are other language had formalise as well?
leetrout 6y ago
Info on the current implementation of generics in Go how to tryout the generics branch parhamn mentions is available at https://blog.tempus-ex.com/generics-in-go-how-they-work-and-how-to-play-with-them/ https://blog.tempus-ex.com/generics-in-go-how-they-work-and-...
- 4ad 6y ago
  That's from the previous generics proposal, substantially different from this one.
  - jhoechtl 6y ago
    This is the intersting discussion. What of the two proposals will receive the Go authors blessing? Isn't the arxiv version just a Guerilla attempt?
    - bmichel 6y ago
      The former proposal was made by 2 members of the Go core team. And they are also in the team of the latter proposal. So, no, the first proposal wasn't good enough for the Go authors and the new proposal is in no way a guerilla attempt.
      - jhoechtl 6y ago
        Thanks for clarification. I followed the discussion in https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/187317 https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/187317 loosely, thought that this is the only way to go and wasn't aware of a second investigation stream.
- ainar-g 6y ago
  That's the previous design based on contracts. https://github.com/wenkokke/featherweight-go-gen https://github.com/wenkokke/featherweight-go-gen This one seems to be the new FGG one.
bmichel 6y ago
The syntax really makes me think to Zig - https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/#Introducing-the-Compile-Time-Concept https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/#Introducing-the-Co.... I'd be curious to know if the authors of this paper have looked at it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
ainar-g 6y ago
From the conclusion: Featherweight Go is restricted to a tiny subset of Go. We plan a model of other important features such as assignments, arrays, slices, and packages, which we will dub Bantamweight Go; and a model of Go’s innovative concurrency mechanism based on “goroutines” and message passing, which we will dub Cruiserweight Go. Love the naming!
- solarkraft 6y ago
  Thanks for posting, but next time please cite with >. This code block is a scrolling nightmare on mobile.
- kyrra 6y ago
  > Featherweight Go is restricted to a tiny subset of Go. We plan a model of other important features such as assignments, arrays, slices, and packages, which we will dub Bantamweight Go; and a model of Go’s innovative concurrency mechanism based on “goroutines” and message passing, which we will dub Cruiserweight Go. Required better for mobile.
  - bo1024 6y ago
    And desktop, thank you.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
lazyjones 6y ago
Thanks for reminding me how the rampant abuse of nearly unreadable mathematical notation for things that can be easily expressed in concise natural language contributed to (voluntarily) shortening my academic career. But more seriously, it's interesting how this produces publications before actual implementations.
- jlouis 6y ago
  Closer to logic. There is a straightforward rewrite into prolog if you want a program. Or one of the proof assistants. The notation is abused though. Try looking up some of the work by Guy L. Steele in the recent years.
  - lazyjones 6y ago
    > Closer to logic. There is a straightforward rewrite into prolog if you want a program. Journal papers usually don't get rewritten into Prolog or fed into proof assistants. They're read by human beings. I've long suspected (and colleagues used to "joke" about it) that excessive use of mathematical notation is just employed to impress and/or confuse peer reviewers into just accepting the paper instead of trying to comprehend it first.
    - jlouis 6y ago
      Well, some journals have demanded proof assistant-level proofs of the work they present. This helps the rigor of the notation a lot since you can't cheat on the proof assistant, and if you confuse it, you are in trouble :) The problem is that getting the notation right is actually quite hard. People write, to the best of their effort, to make the description succinct and understandable. But the notation is pliable, in the same way much mathematics is written: it isn't as rigorous as we would like. Writing the same thing in regular prose is much much harder and there are many more ways things can go wrong. So the state-of-the-art demands formal proof which can be verified by a machine. And it shows in the precision of the notation, which often leaves little to no room for wrong interpretation.
    - Ericson2314 6y ago
TheDong 6y ago
> Whereas most programming languages use nominal subtyping, Go is unique among mainstream typed programming languages in using structural subtyping. I thought typescript also used structural subtyping? i.e. in typescript I can define: interface Stringer { String: () => string } function takesStringer(s: Stringer) {} And now I can call takesStringer with any class that happens to have a String() method. This seems to match structural subtyping in go. Am I missing some reason that this isn't structural subtyping as referred to in the paper? Do they mean to say that typescript isn't a "mainstream typed programming language"?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ImprobableTruth 6y ago
  It absolutely does. It doesn't have any nominal typing at all, so even classes are compared structurally. I assume they're not considering it because typescript compiles to javascript, so it doesn't have the problem Go faces of how to generate code for its generics. The wording is definitely weird though.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
peter_d_sherman 6y ago
Suggestion: While your paper is very intellectual and I laud that, perhaps what would work better for mass uptake is to create your own programming language around the concepts you propose, and let people try that language. You could call this language "Featherweight Go" if you wish, but perhaps it would be better to call it something else entirely, and simply state that that this new language was inspired by Go. This choice comes with potential business, legal, and other ramifications, for example, should Google get all of the benefit, in terms of fame, goodwill, users and other intrinsic bonuses from the work you've done; or could you profit (if that was your goal) if you were to create your own company around this new language? You see, that's what I mean by potential business and legal issues. Oftentimes, people who are employed by other people work extremely hard on academic pursuits, such as academic papers, yet their work is never adequately rewarded, compensated, or even appreciated. Which is why I suggest you create your own language and possibly your own company around that language. Because otherwise you'll never know nor understand the true economic value of what you've created, and you might spend an eternity trying to convince people who are of lesser intelligence to read your paper, whereas they could be using, downloading, telling their friends about the great new language you created; and maybe even paying you money, if you played your cards right... Note that I am not suggesting you go this route (it's your decision, maybe you just want to bring better free open source software to the open source community and that's highly laudable), all I'm saying is, you might be on your bed on your 85th birthday, and you might look back at your life, and you might wonder "boy, I wonder what would have happened had I tried to start a company around this set of ideas; I wonder what would have happened if I had taken the road not travelled.." That's all I'm trying to say... Nothing more, nothing less. Your choice. Make it wisely. Your paper shows tons of intellect.
- platinumrad 6y ago
  What are you talking about... Two members of the Go team are on the author list.
  - peter_d_sherman 6y ago
    If I were them, I'd leave Google and start my own programming language company. I can't speak for them of course, but that's what I would do if I were in their position.
infinity0 6y ago
> The goal is to define a data type by cases, where one can add new cases to the data type and new functions over the data type, without recompiling existing code, and while retaining static type safety. Not sure what real problem this is solving. In practise you don't just add new cases, you delete some cases, and you re-add different cases later. Two different people might add two different cases in parallel with each other. Oops, now you have to re-compile anyway.
wwarner 6y ago
Go generics without introducing contracts! This is exactly what I was hoping for!
apatheticonion 6y ago
For anyone interested in seeing what's possible with Generics in Go - Here is an online playground that uses the browser-based playground and a WASM compiler to run the generics proposal (in browser). The example includes a simple generic `Filter` function https://ccbrown.github.io/wasm-go-playground/experimental/generics/#A4Qwxg1iDmCmAEBbEBLAdgKAwMwK5rHgDEUAbAF1gCcAKcgT2AQBUBKeG0gbQF1mAaeMHh4CNAG7w28AEYB7OaXa9m8AN4YAkHNzlgu+AC4AvPBVqAvlq3Y5VeAH1Bkk/Cog0ceKXVbNVWABnXAojU2AJVj8UbDcgkPJ4Y1NyKlwEDU1NeBz4HT0DUxBgJjQAExp8/XJnKKyrTQatAPJcKjQ83WqMKxx8QmR0GnZMwLCzHkDU9Gg1ACIQOcE5mSX4ObA5ps1Y1xIKahpAwVEwCXgpqhn2eUVfLJj4SWT11fuslraO7BBSQNg/BZ4FpcvB/LBWu14Kl0loLHUbHZHM5xu5PAhYplNMArmhyKQ0JE4T0MEA=== https://ccbrown.github.io/wasm-go-playground/experimental/ge...
pl1315 6y ago
PLZ don't. Let's keep it C-like
- jhoechtl 6y ago
  May be an attempt to silence the Rust-fanbois because of the touted old-fashionism of Go. So let's sprinkle some ML topping an be good.

252 points by 4ad 6y ago

The talk by Philip Wadler is one of the most insightful I have heard : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq0WFigax_c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq0WFigax_c In brief, they are following a process of stripping Go to the most basic possible syntax, and then adding generics (Featherweight). Then they will add more features back and build up to the full language, ending with Cruiserweight where channels will be addressed. The generics proposal builds on interfaces rather than contracts. Wadler sees Go occupying a unique space in terms of supporting "open supertypes" in the sense that in Go we do not have to declare a struct to be of a particular interface type it is automatically derived based on the methods defined on the struct. This allows a proposal which allows Go to be extended tp solve the "expression problem" first defined by Wadler in 98. I really hope these beautiful ideas turn out to be workable - I am sure Go will gain immensely if they are well thought out.

pansa2 6y ago

Is that a jab at Haskell in the very first paragraph? > Today [Go] sits at position 12 on the Tiobe Programming > Language Index (Haskell sits at position 41).

dddbbb 6y ago
One of the authors, Philip Wadler, contributed heavily to the design of Haskell. So I presume it's friendly joking.
frej 6y ago
Authors wants to bring types to where people are. Simply justifying their work.

pjmlp 6y ago

The irony of going back to Featherweight Java, done in 2001. At least some work is being done, even if "This is the beginning of the story, not the end".

jlouis 6y ago
I don't think this is so ironic after all. Featherweight Java is an idealized language, small enough for doing experiments. These experiments often involve the necessity of a formal proof. But being a small language, still capturing the crux of the full language, greatly simplifies the problem space. Featherweight Go serves the same purpose: find the core. Give the core generics. Then you have a good chance at implementing generics for the full language. Most languages which end up with type parametrization do so when the language is small and somewhat pliable. Neither Java nor Go did, even though both languages had plenty of prior work in the area. Hence, you have to "reconstruct" a world in which there is such a small language such that your experiments run fast.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Except that these kind of experiments contributed to Java generics, being made available 3 years before Go 1.0 was given a green light. Which is why Go had already a good example to learn from on how not to do language design.
  - eeh 6y ago
    Are you suggesting all new typed languages have generics? What makes you so sure there isn't room in the design space for a typed language without generics? As much as I like generics, Go's popularity is a success: programmers have spoken, and they value other things more than generics. Hindsight is 20/20, and even this isn't a commitment to introduce generics in Go.
    - jdub 6y ago
      "programmers have spoken, and they"...'ve done quite a lot of work to get the benefits of generics without language support. You can pretty much look at any large Go project (famously Kubernetes) and see a workaround of some shape or form.
      - smarterclayton 6y ago

corty 6y ago

Fingers crossed: hopefully this is a step towards generics in golang. Up to now it always seems to have been one step forward, two steps back (or rather "wait another few versions")

parhamn 6y ago

There’s also a generics implementation on a branch of the go repo. I’m most curious how they perform on compilation speed assuming a big project makes decent use of generics. I doubt golang would merge anything that causes significant slowdown. And I don’t blame them, the only reason I don’t dread TypeScript dev given its slow compile times is you can typecheck async and strip the typing information for the hot reload.

fyfy18 6y ago
Don't ever try Scala. I work on a mid-sized CRUD application, and everything we need to recompile from scratch it takes 10 minutes. Typescript and Go are amazing in comparison in that department, but I miss the stronger typing of Scala.
- logicchains 6y ago
  >Don't ever try Scala. Don't ever try C++. I work on a medium-sized low-level C++ application, and every time we need to compile from scratch it takes over two hours on a single core. Even with distributing the compilation out across over a hundred cores the fastest it can get down to is around 20 minutes.
  - Iwan-Zotow 6y ago
    how come hundred cores is only speedup of ~6?
    - IshKebab 6y ago
      On large C++ projects there are usually a ton of steps that can't be perfectly parallelized. Linking is usually single threaded, you might have dependencies that are way less than 100 CPP files. CMake is single threaded and very slow. Lots of projects have custom Python scripts for code generation or whatnot - all single threaded.
    - gonzo41 6y ago
      You can only say the alphabet one way, starting from A and ending in Z. Some tasks can't be parallelized. I expect a lot of those cores wait for critical paths to execute.

journeeman 6y ago

There's an upcoming talk by Philip Wadler on this paper on June 8 - http://chalmersfp.org/ http://chalmersfp.org/ YouTube channel where the talk will be streamed live - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiGOzKde1rlvzEB7J73gvrQ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiGOzKde1rlvzEB7J73gvrQ

todotask 6y ago

I'm curious on this part, "Although monomorphisation is widely used, we are one of the first to formalise it.", which are other language had formalise as well?

leetrout 6y ago

Info on the current implementation of generics in Go how to tryout the generics branch parhamn mentions is available at https://blog.tempus-ex.com/generics-in-go-how-they-work-and-how-to-play-with-them/ https://blog.tempus-ex.com/generics-in-go-how-they-work-and-...

4ad 6y ago
That's from the previous generics proposal, substantially different from this one.
- jhoechtl 6y ago
  This is the intersting discussion. What of the two proposals will receive the Go authors blessing? Isn't the arxiv version just a Guerilla attempt?
  - bmichel 6y ago
    The former proposal was made by 2 members of the Go core team. And they are also in the team of the latter proposal. So, no, the first proposal wasn't good enough for the Go authors and the new proposal is in no way a guerilla attempt.
    - jhoechtl 6y ago
      Thanks for clarification. I followed the discussion in https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/187317 https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/187317 loosely, thought that this is the only way to go and wasn't aware of a second investigation stream.
ainar-g 6y ago
That's the previous design based on contracts. https://github.com/wenkokke/featherweight-go-gen https://github.com/wenkokke/featherweight-go-gen This one seems to be the new FGG one.

bmichel 6y ago

The syntax really makes me think to Zig - https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/#Introducing-the-Compile-Time-Concept https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/#Introducing-the-Co.... I'd be curious to know if the authors of this paper have looked at it.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

ainar-g 6y ago

From the conclusion: Featherweight Go is restricted to a tiny subset of Go. We plan a model of other important features such as assignments, arrays, slices, and packages, which we will dub Bantamweight Go; and a model of Go’s innovative concurrency mechanism based on “goroutines” and message passing, which we will dub Cruiserweight Go. Love the naming!

solarkraft 6y ago
Thanks for posting, but next time please cite with >. This code block is a scrolling nightmare on mobile.
kyrra 6y ago
> Featherweight Go is restricted to a tiny subset of Go. We plan a model of other important features such as assignments, arrays, slices, and packages, which we will dub Bantamweight Go; and a model of Go’s innovative concurrency mechanism based on “goroutines” and message passing, which we will dub Cruiserweight Go. Required better for mobile.
- bo1024 6y ago
  And desktop, thank you.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

lazyjones 6y ago

Thanks for reminding me how the rampant abuse of nearly unreadable mathematical notation for things that can be easily expressed in concise natural language contributed to (voluntarily) shortening my academic career. But more seriously, it's interesting how this produces publications before actual implementations.

jlouis 6y ago
Closer to logic. There is a straightforward rewrite into prolog if you want a program. Or one of the proof assistants. The notation is abused though. Try looking up some of the work by Guy L. Steele in the recent years.
- lazyjones 6y ago
  > Closer to logic. There is a straightforward rewrite into prolog if you want a program. Journal papers usually don't get rewritten into Prolog or fed into proof assistants. They're read by human beings. I've long suspected (and colleagues used to "joke" about it) that excessive use of mathematical notation is just employed to impress and/or confuse peer reviewers into just accepting the paper instead of trying to comprehend it first.
  - jlouis 6y ago
    Well, some journals have demanded proof assistant-level proofs of the work they present. This helps the rigor of the notation a lot since you can't cheat on the proof assistant, and if you confuse it, you are in trouble :) The problem is that getting the notation right is actually quite hard. People write, to the best of their effort, to make the description succinct and understandable. But the notation is pliable, in the same way much mathematics is written: it isn't as rigorous as we would like. Writing the same thing in regular prose is much much harder and there are many more ways things can go wrong. So the state-of-the-art demands formal proof which can be verified by a machine. And it shows in the precision of the notation, which often leaves little to no room for wrong interpretation.
  - Ericson2314 6y ago

TheDong 6y ago

> Whereas most programming languages use nominal subtyping, Go is unique among mainstream typed programming languages in using structural subtyping. I thought typescript also used structural subtyping? i.e. in typescript I can define: interface Stringer { String: () => string } function takesStringer(s: Stringer) {} And now I can call takesStringer with any class that happens to have a String() method. This seems to match structural subtyping in go. Am I missing some reason that this isn't structural subtyping as referred to in the paper? Do they mean to say that typescript isn't a "mainstream typed programming language"?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ImprobableTruth 6y ago
It absolutely does. It doesn't have any nominal typing at all, so even classes are compared structurally. I assume they're not considering it because typescript compiles to javascript, so it doesn't have the problem Go faces of how to generate code for its generics. The wording is definitely weird though.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

peter_d_sherman 6y ago

Suggestion: While your paper is very intellectual and I laud that, perhaps what would work better for mass uptake is to create your own programming language around the concepts you propose, and let people try that language. You could call this language "Featherweight Go" if you wish, but perhaps it would be better to call it something else entirely, and simply state that that this new language was inspired by Go. This choice comes with potential business, legal, and other ramifications, for example, should Google get all of the benefit, in terms of fame, goodwill, users and other intrinsic bonuses from the work you've done; or could you profit (if that was your goal) if you were to create your own company around this new language? You see, that's what I mean by potential business and legal issues. Oftentimes, people who are employed by other people work extremely hard on academic pursuits, such as academic papers, yet their work is never adequately rewarded, compensated, or even appreciated. Which is why I suggest you create your own language and possibly your own company around that language. Because otherwise you'll never know nor understand the true economic value of what you've created, and you might spend an eternity trying to convince people who are of lesser intelligence to read your paper, whereas they could be using, downloading, telling their friends about the great new language you created; and maybe even paying you money, if you played your cards right... Note that I am not suggesting you go this route (it's your decision, maybe you just want to bring better free open source software to the open source community and that's highly laudable), all I'm saying is, you might be on your bed on your 85th birthday, and you might look back at your life, and you might wonder "boy, I wonder what would have happened had I tried to start a company around this set of ideas; I wonder what would have happened if I had taken the road not travelled.." That's all I'm trying to say... Nothing more, nothing less. Your choice. Make it wisely. Your paper shows tons of intellect.

platinumrad 6y ago
What are you talking about... Two members of the Go team are on the author list.
- peter_d_sherman 6y ago
  If I were them, I'd leave Google and start my own programming language company. I can't speak for them of course, but that's what I would do if I were in their position.

infinity0 6y ago

> The goal is to define a data type by cases, where one can add new cases to the data type and new functions over the data type, without recompiling existing code, and while retaining static type safety. Not sure what real problem this is solving. In practise you don't just add new cases, you delete some cases, and you re-add different cases later. Two different people might add two different cases in parallel with each other. Oops, now you have to re-compile anyway.

wwarner 6y ago

Go generics without introducing contracts! This is exactly what I was hoping for!

apatheticonion 6y ago

For anyone interested in seeing what's possible with Generics in Go - Here is an online playground that uses the browser-based playground and a WASM compiler to run the generics proposal (in browser). The example includes a simple generic `Filter` function https://ccbrown.github.io/wasm-go-playground/experimental/generics/#A4Qwxg1iDmCmAEBbEBLAdgKAwMwK5rHgDEUAbAF1gCcAKcgT2AQBUBKeG0gbQF1mAaeMHh4CNAG7w28AEYB7OaXa9m8AN4YAkHNzlgu+AC4AvPBVqAvlq3Y5VeAH1Bkk/Cog0ceKXVbNVWABnXAojU2AJVj8UbDcgkPJ4Y1NyKlwEDU1NeBz4HT0DUxBgJjQAExp8/XJnKKyrTQatAPJcKjQ83WqMKxx8QmR0GnZMwLCzHkDU9Gg1ACIQOcE5mSX4ObA5ps1Y1xIKahpAwVEwCXgpqhn2eUVfLJj4SWT11fuslraO7BBSQNg/BZ4FpcvB/LBWu14Kl0loLHUbHZHM5xu5PAhYplNMArmhyKQ0JE4T0MEA=== https://ccbrown.github.io/wasm-go-playground/experimental/ge...

pl1315 6y ago

PLZ don't. Let's keep it C-like

jhoechtl 6y ago
May be an attempt to silence the Rust-fanbois because of the touted old-fashionism of Go. So let's sprinkle some ML topping an be good.