3 ms·
You might enjoy this link ;) http://cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/ http://cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/
by qznc 14y ago
You might enjoy this link ;)
http://cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/ http://cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/
- _yosefk 14y agoI've read this comparison between Go and ALGOL-68, and I did enjoy it. Here are quotes from it that explain the difference between "good" and "effective" - exactly the point that I was making here (the article we're discussing claiming that C is effective, not that it is good in whatever sense): "So why am I comparing Go with a language 41 years older? Because Go is not a good language." But... "I'm not suggesting that everyone drop Go and switch to Algol-68. There's a big difference between a good programming language and an effective programming language. Just look at Java. Go has a modern compiler, proper tools, libraries, a development community, and people wanting to use it. Algol-68 has none of these. I could use Go to get proper work done; I probably couldn't in Algol-68. Go is effective in a way that Algol-68 isn't." Note that the author of a parent comment actually claimed to prefer ALGOL-68 to C for writing production code today, in practice.