3 ms·
It's interesting and I guess this just reflects what one of the founders said in a speech (which was re-published onto the 'tubes), that though they went out tr
by te_chris 14y ago
It's interesting and I guess this just reflects what one of the founders said in a speech (which was re-published onto the 'tubes), that though they went out trying to make a systems programming language that would attract system language programmers, they've been picking up a lot of us dynamic "script kiddies" (I didn't mean that term seriously, lighten up).
I'm a PHP/Ruby/JS developer, I dabble in iOS/ObjC and it's ok, but the language which has me most excited is Go. I've watched screen casts and read things but still haven't got around to building anything serious in it, but when I get the time/need to build something really performant, I will. It could just be because it's new, but it seems to have an energy about it and the developers have made a real effort to provide great docs and make it accessible to us mere mortal, non-cs educated dynamic folk. I thank them for that.
- Detrus 14y agoGo is advertised as feeling scripty and light but I don't think it really shakes the systems programming feel. Idiomatic Go has a lot of error checking which adds verbosity. It would be nice to have a language you can do scripty stuff with but also build high performance systems, but I doubt Go will be it. Clojure seems closer but somewhat less performant.
- mdwrigh2 14y agoI mean, you should be handling errors, that's the point. But if you want to ignore them, it's almost always the last return value so you can just write: foo, _ := DoBar()