4 ms·
To me Go seems like almost a copycat of Oberon with channels added. But I neither used Oberon nor Go so that’s more of a spec-reading impression. What would you
by wirrbel 3y ago
To me Go seems like almost a copycat of Oberon with channels added. But I neither used Oberon nor Go so that’s more of a spec-reading impression. What would you say having used both?
- pjmlp 3y agoIt is more like a Limbo copy cat, with a bit of Oberon influences. As strange as it may sound, UNIX folks were Oberon fans, hence why ACME in Plan 9 had a similar developer workflow as the whole Oberon UI, where clickable text is combined with dynamic UI actions. Plan 9 failed short of using a userspace systems language as C's successor (see Alef[0]). Plan 9's sucessor, Inferno, fixed this with Limbo [1], where C is only used for the kernel, disVM, and a couple of userspace libraries, everything else done in Limbo. Go ends up being a mix of Limbo, Oberon-2 method syntax and SYSTEM package. However one thing that both Limbo and Oberon based systems have, and Go misses out, in how the whole platform embraces dynamic linking to extend existing applications, and surface operations to the UI. By the way, I advise wasting a couple of hours diving into Inferno and Limbo's manuals[2], [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alef_(programming_language) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alef_(programming_language) [1] - https://www.vitanuova.com/inferno/limbo.html https://www.vitanuova.com/inferno/limbo.html [2] - https://www.vitanuova.com/inferno/docs.html https://www.vitanuova.com/inferno/docs.html
- sillywalk 3y agoInferno itself had a plugin for Internet Explorer.