3 ms·
Based on this critique, the author would probably have found Go even more useful than C. He would not only have avoided the OO and exceptions mess he found prob
by lazyjones 13y ago
Based on this critique, the author would probably have found Go even more useful than C. He would not only have avoided the OO and exceptions mess he found problematic in C++, but also the tedious manual memory management in C/C++.
- babawere 13y agoThe Author admitted that .... He Said "Practically an advertisement for Go" https://groups.google.com/d/msg/golang-nuts/QWy3YJvcUk0/E22PU93EdlMJ https://groups.google.com/d/msg/golang-nuts/QWy3YJvcUk0/E22P...
- cpeterso 13y agoCan Go generate .so libraries that can be called from (and call back to) C/C++ code?
- babawere 13y agoNot sure but there seems to be shared library support for 6l/5l https://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=1eadf11dd1b7b19d4857681363553c2cfd2ad47d https://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=1eadf11dd1b7b19...
- killedbydeath 13y agoMemory management in C++ is not tedious at all (with implicit reference counting).
- lazyjones 13y agoThat is correct, but libzmq uses malloc/free (despite C++).
- killedbydeath 13y agoYes indeed. I always recommend doing the opposite in C++ projects: use reference counting and not use exceptions.
- archangel_one 13y ago> the tedious manual memory management in C/C++. The two aren't remotely the same - I find it fairly tedious (but explicit, which is sometimes nice) in C, but reasonably painless in C++ with unique_ptr and similar things. As has been mentioned in other comments on this article, treating the two as the same language, or versions of it, is a mistake.