2 ms·
It's not worse. It's just only slightly better. The most damning thing you can say about Go is not that it doesn't improve upon C, it's that it improves only on
by kbolino 2y ago
It's not worse. It's just only slightly better. The most damning thing you can say about Go is not that it doesn't improve upon C, it's that it improves only on C (and only in the ways cared about). The authors of Go really didn't examine other languages very closely. So starting with the authors' goals (light on the page, bounds checked, concurrency with message passing, easy to pick up, fast to compile) and a fairly deep knowledge of C (but little else) you pretty much get Go (especially early Go).
- pjmlp 2y agoEven that isn't really the case, as Go, as it started, was basically Inferno's Limbo in a new clothing, with some influence from Oberon-2 method syntax and the SYSTEM package as unsafe. Unfortunately afterwards they decided to follow Wirth's quest in Oberon-07 minimalism, instead of Active Oberon.
- baranul 2y agoI've always felt that the behavior of Go's ownership, in regards to minimalism, is a reflection of it being considered a solution for their internal problems. This is something outside of what users are requesting or needing. People have to look at Go alternative languages like Goplus, V (Vlang), Borogo, etc... for wanted features or greater responsiveness to user demands.