4 ms·

Comparing it to high level languages seems to be a bit of a red herring...

• jlgreco 14y ago
  Holy moly "high level language" is a moving target. A language with closures, built in high level concurrency, garbage collection, no pointer arithmetic, and a 'batteries included' standard library isn't high level these days?
  • timClicks 14y ago
    Perhaps the intention was to say "dynamic, interpreted" languages, rather than "high level"..
  • shardling 14y ago
    What? I wasn't saying anything about Go. (swdunlop is the one who injected the term "high level" into the discussion.) But if you claim that language X is good at Y, implicitly you're comparing it with all languages, not a subset. AFAIK most emulators are written in C or assembly or the like -- so it's especially odd to compare Go to everything but them in this context.
  • swdunlop 14y ago
    I wanted something relative to ANSI C, which has no closures, no concurrency, no garbage collection, and a standard library consisting of stone tools, without invoking the horrible term "Very High Level Language", which implies Visual Basic and copypasta. ;) Perhaps I should have gone for the Monty Pythonesque "higher level than C but lower level than ASP.Net" term?