View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
November 14, 2009
Re: Go: A new system programing language
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> grauzone wrote:
>> Daniel de Kok wrote:
>>> But hey, there is a compiler for 64-bit binaries :). Of course, I 
>>> should swallow that, and help with the LDC efforts...
>>
>> As far as I know, ldc+Tango already works on 64 bit. Also, Go has no 
>> Windows compiler, which is an _absolute_ show stopper.
> 
> Yeah, but that's something that can be fixed. What is more difficult to 

Don't underestimate the negative effects of a bad toolchain. D has the 
same problem, but (apparently) not as bad.

> fix is that Go is all-over an unremarkable and unoriginal language 
> (something that would become obvious if one thinks for a second what 
> would have happened if Go wasn't associated with Google's brand name). 
> On the other hand, it is associated with Google's brand name. :o) It 
> will be interesting to see how things turn out.

I agree, the brand name is probably the best what Go got. (But it's not 
that Go doesn't contain some good ideas.)

> Andrei
November 14, 2009
Re: Go: A new system programing language
On 2009-11-14 13:35:08 +0100, grauzone <none@example.net> said:
> Daniel de Kok wrote:
>> But hey, there is a compiler for 64-bit binaries :). Of course, I 
>> should swallow that, and help with the LDC efforts...
> 
> As far as I know, ldc+Tango already works on 64 bit. Also, Go has no 
> Windows compiler, which is an _absolute_ show stopper.

Sorry, D2 with Phobos is absolutely the only option for me. I use STL 
in C++ all the time, and I want something nearly equivalent.

Of course, there are older gdc versions that work with D2, but it seems 
kind of pointless to go so far back in time considering the recent 
great work...

-- Daniel
November 14, 2009
Re: Go: A new system programing language
On 2009-11-14 16:19:00 +0100, Andrei Alexandrescu 
<SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> said:
> grauzone wrote:
>> Daniel de Kok wrote:
>>> But hey, there is a compiler for 64-bit binaries :). Of course, I 
>>> should swallow that, and help with the LDC efforts...
>> 
>> As far as I know, ldc+Tango already works on 64 bit. Also, Go has no 
>> Windows compiler, which is an _absolute_ show stopper.
> 
> Yeah, but that's something that can be fixed. What is more difficult to 
> fix is that Go is all-over an unremarkable and unoriginal language 
> (something that would become obvious if one thinks for a second what 
> would have happened if Go wasn't associated with Google's brand name). 
> On the other hand, it is associated with Google's brand name. :o) It 
> will be interesting to see how things turn out.

Unremarkable, but to be fair it will appeal to a large number of people 
who want a more modern C without the complexity of C++ (or D). It 
resembles the approach of Objective-C quite much, but I think Google is 
better able to push it beyond their own products. That is if Google is 
actually interested in Go, other than it being a 20% project.

-- Daniel
November 14, 2009
Re: Go: A new system programing language
Daniel de Kok wrote:
> On 2009-11-14 13:35:08 +0100, grauzone <none@example.net> said:
>> Daniel de Kok wrote:
>>> But hey, there is a compiler for 64-bit binaries :). Of course, I 
>>> should swallow that, and help with the LDC efforts...
>>
>> As far as I know, ldc+Tango already works on 64 bit. Also, Go has no 
>> Windows compiler, which is an _absolute_ show stopper.
> 
> Sorry, D2 with Phobos is absolutely the only option for me. I use STL in 
> C++ all the time, and I want something nearly equivalent.

If there's one thing I don't miss from C++, then it's the STL.

> Of course, there are older gdc versions that work with D2, but it seems 
> kind of pointless to go so far back in time considering the recent great 
> work...
> 
> -- Daniel
>
November 14, 2009
Re: Go: A new system programing language
Andrei Alexandrescu, el 14 de noviembre a las 09:19 me escribiste:
> grauzone wrote:
> >Daniel de Kok wrote:
> >>But hey, there is a compiler for 64-bit binaries :). Of course,
> >>I should swallow that, and help with the LDC efforts...
> >
> >As far as I know, ldc+Tango already works on 64 bit. Also, Go has
> >no Windows compiler, which is an _absolute_ show stopper.
> 
> Yeah, but that's something that can be fixed. What is more difficult
> to fix is that Go is all-over an unremarkable and unoriginal
> language (something that would become obvious if one thinks for a
> second what would have happened if Go wasn't associated with
> Google's brand name). On the other hand, it is associated with
> Google's brand name. :o) It will be interesting to see how things
> turn out.

Don't forget it's designed by Rob Pike and Ken Thompson. That's *not*
irrelevant, it's not just a Google language.

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DESCARRILĂ“ EL GUSANO LOCO Y QUEDARON CHICOS ATRAPADOS
	-- Diario La Capital
November 15, 2009
Re: Go: A new system programing language
grauzone wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> grauzone wrote:
>>> Daniel de Kok wrote:
>>>> But hey, there is a compiler for 64-bit binaries :). Of course, I 
>>>> should swallow that, and help with the LDC efforts...
>>>
>>> As far as I know, ldc+Tango already works on 64 bit. Also, Go has no 
>>> Windows compiler, which is an _absolute_ show stopper.
>>
>> Yeah, but that's something that can be fixed. What is more difficult to 
> 
> Don't underestimate the negative effects of a bad toolchain. D has the 
> same problem, but (apparently) not as bad.
> 
>> fix is that Go is all-over an unremarkable and unoriginal language 
>> (something that would become obvious if one thinks for a second what 
>> would have happened if Go wasn't associated with Google's brand name). 
>> On the other hand, it is associated with Google's brand name. :o) It 
>> will be interesting to see how things turn out.
> 
> I agree, the brand name is probably the best what Go got. (But it's not 
> that Go doesn't contain some good ideas.)

Well I'm not sure. I haven't seen anything original in Go, just 
regurgitations of prior approaches. Of course, there may be value in 
finding the right mix of herbs, but right now the soup is rather long*.

Andrei

* "long soup" = Romanian phrase for a soup rich in water but lacking in 
all other ingredients.
November 15, 2009
Re: Go: A new system programing language
Leandro Lucarella wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu, el 14 de noviembre a las 09:19 me escribiste:
>> grauzone wrote:
>>> Daniel de Kok wrote:
>>>> But hey, there is a compiler for 64-bit binaries :). Of course,
>>>> I should swallow that, and help with the LDC efforts...
>>> As far as I know, ldc+Tango already works on 64 bit. Also, Go has
>>> no Windows compiler, which is an _absolute_ show stopper.
>> Yeah, but that's something that can be fixed. What is more difficult
>> to fix is that Go is all-over an unremarkable and unoriginal
>> language (something that would become obvious if one thinks for a
>> second what would have happened if Go wasn't associated with
>> Google's brand name). On the other hand, it is associated with
>> Google's brand name. :o) It will be interesting to see how things
>> turn out.
> 
> Don't forget it's designed by Rob Pike and Ken Thompson. That's *not*
> irrelevant, it's not just a Google language.

I have a huge amount of respect for both, but I think Rob Pike is not
quite a language designer. Ken Thompson is a brilliant designer, but I
don't know what recent work he has done in language design prior to Go.
Honest, I'd be much more worried about Go if Craig Chambers were involved.

Andrei
November 15, 2009
Re: Go: A new system programing language
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
<SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:

> * "long soup" = Romanian phrase for a soup rich in water but lacking in all
> other ingredients.

A.k.a. "thin soup" in English.   :-)

--bb
November 15, 2009
Re: Go: A new system programing language
Bill Baxter Wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
> <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:
> 
> > * "long soup" = Romanian phrase for a soup rich in water but lacking in all
> > other ingredients.
> 
> A.k.a. "thin soup" in English.   :-)
> 
> --bb

Also known as "all sizzle and no sausage" (Australian BBQ).
November 15, 2009
Re: Go: A new system programing language
Bill Baxter wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
> <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org> wrote:
> 
>> * "long soup" = Romanian phrase for a soup rich in water but lacking in all
>> other ingredients.
> 
> A.k.a. "thin soup" in English.   :-)

Thank you! This kind of stuff is difficult to find with a dictionary.

Andrei
Next ›   Last »
3 4 5 6 7
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home