3 ms·
I don't read anything from Guido, so I don't know how he thinks, but I would interpret this as meaning that he doesn't see anything new and exciting in Go, but
by DanielStraight 17y ago
I don't read anything from Guido, so I don't know how he thinks, but I would interpret this as meaning that he doesn't see anything new and exciting in Go, but that he does in Scratch. That alone forms a comparison. A programming language that kids could actaully learn that would let them make web games that they could share with their friends definitely seems like it would be cool. What does Go offer that we can't already do?
- jimbokun 17y ago"What does Go offer that we can't already do?" Careful saying this around computer scientists, or you might get an earful about Turing machines, etc. But in any case, isn't Go meant to be a replacement for C and C++? At first glance, Scratch does not seem to fill that niche, so Guido's comment seems a non-sequitur to me.
- csbrooks 17y ago>Careful saying this around computer scientists, or you might get an earful about Turing machines, etc. I think you mean "Turing completeness". Turing machines are a different thing.
- jrockway 17y agoCareful saying this around computer scientists, or you might get an earful about Turing machines, etc. Scientists wouldn't say that. You're thinking of people who just learned x86 assembly yesterday, and are amazed that they can say "Hello world" in 10x the lines of any other language. "It's all the same!"
- stcredzero 17y agoSmalltalk was designed for kids. Kids actually program in it. http://www.squeakland.org/ http://www.squeakland.org/ But we (Smalltalkers) didn't get around to building and promoting a web sharing infrastructure for them, so good on the Scratch people. (Oh, and people have actually done systems programming in Smalltalk!)