4 ms·
> Go was originally pitched as a systems programming language, a better C, like you said. I've always understood this claim as a particular (rather restricted)
by mark_undoio 2y ago
> Go was originally pitched as a systems programming language, a better C, like you said.
I've always understood this claim as a particular (rather restricted) interpretation of "systems" code - meaning network servers, basically (maybe also CLI applications?)
I'd always thought of "systems" as including things like writing standard libraries, kernels and embedded code. But I guess there is a decent slice of other systemsy stuff that Go is good for.
Whereas something like Zig feels like it could really be a better systems programming language in general that C, in all of its different application areas.
- stouset 2y ago> I've always understood this claim as a particular (rather restricted) interpretation of "systems" code This is basically the retcon that the golang community has settled on but it's frankly not true. When go was originally being promoted it was heavily advertised as a systems language suitable for writing low-level programs. Nowhere was it caveated that "systems language" means something different from what everyone understood a "systems language" to be at the time. Only when it more or less failed to gain traction in that space did this get redefined to mean "network servers that mostly just shuffle bytes around and CLI applications".