4 ms·
Yeah but that means if you want to fix things at the libc level, you necessarily skip Go. OpenBSD had/has this problem. But more broadly, I think the policy is
by camgunz 6y ago
Yeah but that means if you want to fix things at the libc level, you necessarily skip Go. OpenBSD had/has this problem.
But more broadly, I think the policy is less "Unix took a wrong turn" and more that goroutines make C/Go interop painful.
- jdub 6y agoBut then, Go is the lurching zombie of Plan 9. :-)
- pjmlp 6y agoInferno.
- jart 6y agoEven if it was "unix took a wrong turn" there wouldn't be any project on earth more qualified to make that claim. I mean, it's Rob Pike & Co. and if you look at their Git repo the first several commits are by Brian Kernighan. They're former Bell Labs employees who worked on things like UNIX.
- rwmj 6y agoAnd even with all that experience they still came up with a terrible programming language.
- Ericson2314 6y agoIf I were Google, go should be shut down, and the Plan 9 crowd reassigned to Fuschia and forced to only write in languages outside their puny comfort zone like Rust.
- pjmlp 6y agoThe fact that everyone forgets about Limbo and Inferno, and keeps talking about Plan 9, proves how successful Go would have been with another employer.
- Ericson2314 6y agoHuh? I think Rob Pike et al. suck at language design, period, but had some decent ideas for systems. I think Go would suck with any employer, but they could do better work on non-programming language things.
- pjmlp 6y agoNope, as proven with Limbo. Go 1.0 is basically Limbo with a bit of Oberon-2 syntax. Outside the chocolate factory, it would have been just as successful, to the point that everyone forgets about Inferno and only talks about Plan 9.