2 ms·
Ok, a language for engineers not for people that want to be truly expressive with the code they write. This is my impression when looking at the examples, they
by antirez 17y ago
Ok, a language for engineers not for people that want to be truly expressive with the code they write. This is my impression when looking at the examples, they have something odd in the way the code looks like.
Now from the technical point of view, there are a few interesting points like the threading approach, but in general the language does not appear to provide great new ideas, nor to be a language where consolidated ideas are put together very elegantly.
It seems like that for system programming the "better C" that one could need is different than this, while for general programming what is really missing is something like Ruby and Python but made as fast as C and with low memory usage by mean of doing the right sacrifices to the language, but still retain most of the abstraction level.
Go is not as powerful as C++, not as high level as Java, not as raw as C for low level stuff. I don't like it.
- blasdel 17y agoNeither C++ nor Java implement Hoare's CSP, or have any primitives fundamental enough to implement them in terms of. Go is exactly what you're asking for in your third paragraph -- it seems you were blinded by the curly braces...
- antirez 17y agoYes CSP is a good abstraction that Go implements, but programming languages are not just a matter of features like call-cc, tail-calls, closures and so on. This are very important things, but it's not enough.
- fauigerzigerk 17y agoThe language breaks with a tradition established in the past 15 years, which says that every new language must be at least a few hundered times slower and less memory efficient than everything that came before it (I know there are exceptions) Go is simple and fast. It has garbage collection, it facilitates parallel programming and it does away with lots of useless OO cruft. At first sight I like it.