4 ms·
I'm pretty stoked on Go. I freaking love C. Love it. It's like they took C and went to the best disciples of C's creators and said "look - we've got these probl
by etrain 14y ago
I'm pretty stoked on Go. I freaking love C. Love it. It's like they took C and went to the best disciples of C's creators and said "look - we've got these problems now nobody envisioned 40 years ago. Can you make C for us again, but better?" And they said "yes!" and it was good.
We get some nice concurrency primitives, garbage collection, cleaner syntax, something between structs and objects that fits the right feeling, automatic bounds checking, cute array syntax, and a big-ass, well defined standard library. Oh, and this concept of interfaces that is so well executed it's not even funny.
Except. I feel like they are forcing the fanboy mindset. At one point in this slide deck, there is the following bullet: "The designs are nothing like hierarchical, subtype-inherited methods. Much looser, organic, decoupled, independent."
I didn't see the talk. But that is the most vapid, meaningless description I've ever seen of a feature of a programming language. Rob might as well have said, "it's hipster better," which would have conveyed exactly as much meaning.
So here's my question - and I hope there are real answers - can someone point me to >3 real, big systems that are built using Go? I'll accept Google internal systems on faith.
- Jare 14y ago> It's like they took C and went to the best disciples of C's creators I'm confused, didn't they go to the _actual_ C creators? Or am I misunderstanding something?
- icebraining 14y agoExcept for Ken Thompson, not really. Neither Dennis Ritchie nor Brian Kernighan (K&R) were involved in Go, as far as I know.
- _ak 14y agoKen Thompson wasn't actually involved in the development of C. He created B, though.
- danieldk 14y agoOh, and this concept of interfaces that is so well executed it's not even funny. http://golang.org/doc/go_faq.html#nil_error http://golang.org/doc/go_faq.html#nil_error