3 ms·
I'm inclined to agree that by itself, this doesn't say much about Go at all. That said, I'm not sure how much a non-open-source program can really do in terms
by Millennium 14y ago
I'm inclined to agree that by itself, this doesn't say much about Go at all.
That said, I'm not sure how much a non-open-source program can really do in terms of marketing Go or any other language. This isn't so much politics as logistics: you need to be able to see the difference in code to get a sense of the advantages or disadvantages of one language over another, and if the program isn't open-source you can't do that. The author can say it's "more readable" (and does, in fact), but that's not something that can be quantified, and so there's really nothing but one guy's opinion to go on.
- Evbn 14y agoFind me 1% of people who have seen Go call it less readable than actual C++ code in the wild, and I would agree that readability is debatable. Go has an open source compiler, tool chain, and standard library, only this top-layer app is the non open source part of the stack.
- Millennium 14y agoYeah, but the top-layer app is where the author's statements would bear out: that's the code directly comparable to the old C++ code that it replaced. It's not really practical to give examples of that when you can't open-source the app; you could maybe do a few trivial snippets or put it all behind a big thick NDA, but neither method works very well.