3 ms·
The author admits that one feature present in Go and missing from Algol-68 is proper closures. I would consider this an extremely significant deficit in Algol-
by sethg 17y ago
The author admits that one feature present in Go and missing from Algol-68 is proper closures. I would consider this an extremely significant deficit in Algol-68, not just one item to bury in a laundry-list comparison.
- tspiteri 17y agoI don't think the article is so good. I got the impression that the main article centers around the part: Take a deep breath. This may shock you. Brand X is Algol-68. That sort of sounds cool, so why not write an article to show that Algol-68 is more consistent than Go? Then the author just tries to compare features not honestly, but with the intention of making Algol-68 look better than Go, so that he builds up to his cool Brand X is Algol-68. His criticism of Go is mosly unfair, for example, how can he say that Go syntax can look ambiguous? I don't think I've seen a more explicit and unambiguous language than Go.