3 ms·

Whether or not this is worthy, Go will steamroller it.

• stcredzero 17y ago
  Not so sure. Cyclone is closer to C, so the porting of libraries will be easier. To me, it's a pretty good realization of "C with Safety Features". It seems to have the minimum to accomplish that. Memory management seems simpler in Go, however. This is a big advantage for Go.
  • JulianMorrison 17y ago
    Hmm. I wonder if it might be too close. That is to say, close enough that people think "I'd rather have this implemented as a static checking flag in my C compiler and a few libraries" - and promptly forget it because they have filed it under "feature request" along with the zillion other things they want from a compiler. The Go designers felt compelled not just to explain why their language is good, but why it ought to have a separate existence and not be implemented as an add-on to C/C++.
    • stcredzero 17y ago
      close enough that people think "I'd rather have this implemented as a static checking flag in my C compiler and a few libraries" - and promptly forget it Cyclone seems to go a bit beyond that. I'd have more confidence in this as a basis for writing a highly secure kernel than just "a static checking flag in my C compiler and a few libraries."