4 ms·

Standardizing Go

5 points by mightybyte 17y ago

wglb 17y ago
First, I think there is a difference between a language that one would call "bare metal" programming and a systems programming language. A systems programming language gives good performance, and gives you good libraries, and makes it feasible or easier to write large programs, such as, say, a compiler. Second, while we always think of C as a "bare metal" language, there are two things that I would count as important in that category. Bare metal programming would have some cache consciousness, perhaps. And a bare metal programming language would make it easy to write coroutines, such as BLISS did and was actually easy in languages like Sigma 5 assembler. C does not do these things for me. Also, how many would agree that a "bare metal" language would have GC? Another thing I would expect from a systems programming language is a little more confidence that my program is correct than I get from raw C. Lack of pointers, array bounds checking would be plus features here. And I disagree a little with the assertion that C lacks a controlling body. Nowadays there is not that much disagreement amongst C compilers. C++ is quite another story. I like the thrust of GO, particularly in the context of the systems programming area, where C++ is usually truncated by internal coding standards (see exceptions in the google coding standards), and templates are often limited by internal coding convention.
- mightybyte 17y ago
  You may be interpreting "bare metal" a little different than I intended. I meant for "bare metal" to increase the scope. It sounds like you interpret it as decreasing the scope. Your use of "systems" sounds like what I meant for "bare metal". I interpret "systems" as relating primarily to operating systems and direct hardware, but maybe my perception is not mainstream. I guess I just chose the wrong phrase. I agree that C now has a better controlling body. Those comments generally referred to the whole history of C and C++ combined.
  - wglb 17y ago
    I see what you mean. Having spent some formative years writing assembler in an interrupt-rich environment has tended to shape my idea of bare metal.
    - mightybyte 17y ago
      I edited the post to use the term "performance-oriented" instead of "bare-metal". Hopefully that makes more sense.

5 points by mightybyte 17y ago

wglb 17y ago

First, I think there is a difference between a language that one would call "bare metal" programming and a systems programming language. A systems programming language gives good performance, and gives you good libraries, and makes it feasible or easier to write large programs, such as, say, a compiler. Second, while we always think of C as a "bare metal" language, there are two things that I would count as important in that category. Bare metal programming would have some cache consciousness, perhaps. And a bare metal programming language would make it easy to write coroutines, such as BLISS did and was actually easy in languages like Sigma 5 assembler. C does not do these things for me. Also, how many would agree that a "bare metal" language would have GC? Another thing I would expect from a systems programming language is a little more confidence that my program is correct than I get from raw C. Lack of pointers, array bounds checking would be plus features here. And I disagree a little with the assertion that C lacks a controlling body. Nowadays there is not that much disagreement amongst C compilers. C++ is quite another story. I like the thrust of GO, particularly in the context of the systems programming area, where C++ is usually truncated by internal coding standards (see exceptions in the google coding standards), and templates are often limited by internal coding convention.

mightybyte 17y ago
You may be interpreting "bare metal" a little different than I intended. I meant for "bare metal" to increase the scope. It sounds like you interpret it as decreasing the scope. Your use of "systems" sounds like what I meant for "bare metal". I interpret "systems" as relating primarily to operating systems and direct hardware, but maybe my perception is not mainstream. I guess I just chose the wrong phrase. I agree that C now has a better controlling body. Those comments generally referred to the whole history of C and C++ combined.
- wglb 17y ago
  I see what you mean. Having spent some formative years writing assembler in an interrupt-rich environment has tended to shape my idea of bare metal.
  - mightybyte 17y ago
    I edited the post to use the term "performance-oriented" instead of "bare-metal". Hopefully that makes more sense.