3 ms·
+1. For me a killer feature is that I easily create executables for lin/mac/win on my machine and don't have any dependencies at all (JVM for example).
by patrickg 14y ago
+1. For me a killer feature is that I easily create executables for lin/mac/win on my machine and don't have any dependencies at all (JVM for example).
- pron 14y agoOh, absolutely! Small executables would be a good fit for Go (provided you don't need a GUI, since AFAIK Go doesn't have a UI toolkit). Only, in that case, isn't a whole new language ecosystem a bit of an overkill to avoid some of the inconveniences you'll have using C/C++? Sorry, I've yet to be shown a large enough class of problems where Go would give a significant enough an advantage to abandon rich and well-established ecosystems. Look, there's no doubt Go is nice, and, as such, some people would use it for some tasks, just because it's there. But if I run a company building large software, why would I switch to an entirely new ecosystem that's incompatible with just about everything unless there is something spectacular that Go can do that no other solution can? Or, at the very least, something extremely hard that Go does very easily. Erlang, which is also incompatible with just about everything (though it might even be more compatible with C than Go is) does some spectacular things. If Go's killer feature is small console programs that don't require dependencies, then, well, it will see very little serious adoption.
- patrickg 14y ago> Only, in that case, isn't a whole new language ecosystem a bit of an overkill to avoid some of the inconveniences you'll have using C/C++? Sure. I've started from scratch and Go seemed to me like the perfect match (not that there aren't any other choices, but it came right into my front door and I said: why not?)
- pjmlp 14y agoThere are native compilers for Java as well, although not for free.