3 ms·

I honestly don't get what the point of Go is. Why not D? Why not Modula3? There is nothing at all compelling in the feature set. Just look at the crap they put

by sedachv 17y ago

I honestly don't get what the point of Go is. Why not D? Why not Modula3? There is nothing at all compelling in the feature set. Just look at the crap they put in for the built-in concurrency primitives: http://golang.org/doc/go_mem.html http://golang.org/doc/go_mem.html So we're back to CSP. Welcome to the 1960s.

dadkins 17y ago
1960s? C. A. R. Hoare, ``Communicating Sequential Processes,'' Communications of the ACM 21(8) (August 1978), 666-677.
- sedachv 17y ago
  Oops. I always assumed Hoare published in the 60s after I found out the factoid that CSP is (one of?) the most cited papers in CS.
dkersten 17y ago
My thoughts exactly, as I stated here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=937765 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=937765
- 9oliYQjP 17y ago
  You're going to be down-voted to oblivion as my comment was here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=938814 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=938814. Google of 2009 has become the Microsoft of 1999. They can release anything and people will love them for it without skepticism. Let them. The sheep can follow their new overlord while the rest of us actually innovate. I highly suspect had Yahoo or Microsoft Research released Go, it would have received a much more lacklustre reception.
  - dkersten 17y ago
    I thought my being downvoted here had more to do with linking to a negative (towards Go) comment, rather than the comment itself. My other comments critical of Google Go have been generally upvoted. But you're right. I think if Google weren't involved, nobody would even give Go a second look.
thenduks 17y ago
I'm not sure how 'crap' comes to mind just looking at the concurrency primitives. You seem to have something against `<`s and `-`s? The 'point' of Go is to be a 'expressive, concurrent, garbage-collected' systems language. It's very early in it's lifecycle and of course immature at the moment... Let's just wait and see what happens in stead of writing it off, shall we?
- sedachv 17y ago
  Umm, yeah, I've been researching and programming concurrent systems for some time now. CSP is not a good way of doing that. Go is not very early in its lifecycle. Just look at the feature set - it's the very direct continuation of the work Pike and Thompson were doing on Plan9.
  - thenduks 17y ago
    CSP is not a good way of doing that. Someone should tell Ericsson! ...plan9... Well... I don't know, I'd consider a language started around the mid nineties pretty early in it's life-cycle. But it's pretty clear to me that which it may be a 'continuation' it's definitely not just 'rebranded'. This is a new project and there's tons of talk all over the place about how "we're working on that". The garbage collector isn't even done yet!
    - sedachv 17y ago
      Erlang is based on message passing ala Actors. Very different things. Take a look at this if you don't believe that their approach hasn't changed: http://swtch.com/~rsc/thread/ http://swtch.com/~rsc/thread/

by sedachv 17y ago

dadkins 17y ago

1960s? C. A. R. Hoare, ``Communicating Sequential Processes,'' Communications of the ACM 21(8) (August 1978), 666-677.

sedachv 17y ago
Oops. I always assumed Hoare published in the 60s after I found out the factoid that CSP is (one of?) the most cited papers in CS.

dkersten 17y ago

My thoughts exactly, as I stated here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=937765 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=937765

9oliYQjP 17y ago
You're going to be down-voted to oblivion as my comment was here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=938814 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=938814. Google of 2009 has become the Microsoft of 1999. They can release anything and people will love them for it without skepticism. Let them. The sheep can follow their new overlord while the rest of us actually innovate. I highly suspect had Yahoo or Microsoft Research released Go, it would have received a much more lacklustre reception.
- dkersten 17y ago
  I thought my being downvoted here had more to do with linking to a negative (towards Go) comment, rather than the comment itself. My other comments critical of Google Go have been generally upvoted. But you're right. I think if Google weren't involved, nobody would even give Go a second look.

thenduks 17y ago

I'm not sure how 'crap' comes to mind just looking at the concurrency primitives. You seem to have something against `<`s and `-`s? The 'point' of Go is to be a 'expressive, concurrent, garbage-collected' systems language. It's very early in it's lifecycle and of course immature at the moment... Let's just wait and see what happens in stead of writing it off, shall we?

sedachv 17y ago
Umm, yeah, I've been researching and programming concurrent systems for some time now. CSP is not a good way of doing that. Go is not very early in its lifecycle. Just look at the feature set - it's the very direct continuation of the work Pike and Thompson were doing on Plan9.
- thenduks 17y ago
  CSP is not a good way of doing that. Someone should tell Ericsson! ...plan9... Well... I don't know, I'd consider a language started around the mid nineties pretty early in it's life-cycle. But it's pretty clear to me that which it may be a 'continuation' it's definitely not just 'rebranded'. This is a new project and there's tons of talk all over the place about how "we're working on that". The garbage collector isn't even done yet!
  - sedachv 17y ago
    Erlang is based on message passing ala Actors. Very different things. Take a look at this if you don't believe that their approach hasn't changed: http://swtch.com/~rsc/thread/ http://swtch.com/~rsc/thread/