On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 18:45:49 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> I swear when I glanced at [1] I thought it was sarcasm. Reading it again - I see it wasn't :)

I know it. But I was already aware the author was very pro-Go from [2], "Interfaces in Go are very powerful, but their power comes from being generic."

FYI, the blogs are actually good for learning Go (in the small scale), but they didn't contain quite enough information that I needed to reference them (just reiterated less information than I already had).

>> 1. http://blog.jessta.id.au/2012/06/gos-sort-package.html

2. http://blog.jessta.id.au/2011/06/golang-interfaces.html

Mmmm - that reminds me...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKHFZBUTA4k

-=mike=-


"Russel Winder" <russel@winder.org.uk> wrote in message news:mailman.230.1383757333.9546.digitalmars-d@puremagic.com...
> On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 17:39 +0100, Bienlein wrote:
> […]
>> 1976? Man, you are a teenager then ;-)
>
> The year I went apesh!t when I found that the elliptic integral solver
> routines in the NAG library were broken. I idled away the time by
> creating idioms for writing abstract data type code in FORTRAN 66.
> Bizarrely, analogous tricks appear to be essential in JavaScript.
>
> It was also the third year of listening to Dark Side of the Moon and the
> first year of Wish You Were Here which is much better.
>
> But you didn't want to know this.
>
> -- 
> Russel.
> =============================================================================
> Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net
> 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk
> London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder
> 

Heh, from http://research.swtch.com/interfaces
> Among other metadata, the type description structure contains a list of the methods implemented by that type. Similarly, the compiler generates a (different) type description structure for each interface type like Stringer; it too contains a method list. The interface runtime computes the itable by looking for each method listed in the interface type's method table in the concrete type's method table.

So methods are tightly coupled with types after all. Doesn't look like what go claims about decoupling types and methods.

>And, of course, Rust has
>Mozilla pushing it.

Well, I don't know what muscle Mozilla has. I don't really
understand where they get their money from (in part from
Google?). Mozilla backing Rust is on a smaller scale than M$
backing C#.

>Go is being pushed by Google and now Canonical, so its market
>penetration and traction in the programming community is assured.

The Go user forum is the most active one I have seen besides the
one from Python. But it doesn't look like Go is a success inside
Google itself so far.

For both, Go and Rust, wait and see might be a good strategy.

On Thu, 2013-11-07 at 13:04 +0100, Bienlein wrote:
[…]
> The Go user forum is the most active one I have seen besides the one from Python. But it doesn't look like Go is a success inside Google itself so far.
> 
> For both, Go and Rust, wait and see might be a good strategy.

I guess the question is whether Canonical and Google end up rewriting the systems currently using Go in something else sometime down the line.

There are a lot of SMEs in London using Go as their core language. Their
enthusiasm stems, I think, from otherwise having to use C. None of them
have used or even heard of D (until I mention it to them in
conversation).

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

On 11/7/2013 7:04 AM, Bienlein wrote:
>> And, of course, Rust has
>> Mozilla pushing it.
>
> Well, I don't know what muscle Mozilla has. I don't really
> understand where they get their money from (in part from
> Google?).
>

Primarily from Google, AIUI. From what I've read on Wikipedia, the vast majority of Mozilla's income is apparently from Google paying them to be Firefox's default search engine.

> There are a lot of SMEs in London using Go as their core language. Their
> enthusiasm stems, I think, from otherwise having to use C.

Well, I think that says it all. Go is made by C programmers for C
programmers. I would say that this is even objectively correct.

What puzzles me is the enormous activity in the Go forum. Only
the Python forum has that much traffic. It seems to me that
people are all that happy if they have a language with which they
can just start hacking around on something.

That is because Go doesn't force anyone to think about design.
The only design-level construct it has is the class an that's it.
Embedding is truly only to save coding effort not having to type
in dereferenciation chains as in C. There is nothing except
classes, but no inheritance, traits, mixins, overriding, etc. So
there is nothing that forces you to think about your design in
Go. And you don't have to know about manual memory management as
in Rust.

-- Bienlein

On Thursday, 21 November 2013 at 09:33:04 UTC, Bienlein wrote:
> What puzzles me is the enormous activity in the Go forum. Only
> the Python forum has that much traffic. It seems to me that
> people are all that happy if they have a language with which they
> can just start hacking around on something.
>
> That is because Go doesn't force anyone to think about design.
> The only design-level construct it has is the class an that's it.
> Embedding is truly only to save coding effort not having to type
> in dereferenciation chains as in C. There is nothing except
> classes, but no inheritance, traits, mixins, overriding, etc. So
> there is nothing that forces you to think about your design in
> Go. And you don't have to know about manual memory management as
> in Rust.
>
> -- Bienlein

I forgot to say that I really don't know what this will end up in
...

On Thursday, 21 November 2013 at 09:57:35 UTC, Bienlein wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 November 2013 at 09:33:04 UTC, Bienlein wrote:
>> What puzzles me is the enormous activity in the Go forum. Only
>> the Python forum has that much traffic. It seems to me that
>> people are all that happy if they have a language with which they
>> can just start hacking around on something.
>>
>> That is because Go doesn't force anyone to think about design.
>> The only design-level construct it has is the class an that's it.
>> Embedding is truly only to save coding effort not having to type
>> in dereferenciation chains as in C. There is nothing except
>> classes, but no inheritance, traits, mixins, overriding, etc. So
>> there is nothing that forces you to think about your design in
>> Go. And you don't have to know about manual memory management as
>> in Rust.
>>
>> -- Bienlein
>
> I forgot to say that I really don't know what this will end up in
> ...

I'm wary of languages that are hyped by big companies or the web programming community. First there was Java which is still getting face lifts and plastic surgery. Then there was Ruby, "the way to go", but it hasn't convinced me yet. If all these languages are "soooo good", why do people still feel the need to come up with new solutions (cf. all the new languages for the JVM)? The answer is probably "tunnel vision" design and development. The language designers offer one ideology and users don't have to think when designing their programs. Simple as that. If you have a big company to back this up, people will think "it's THE ultimate best ever" language. Personally, I enjoy the freedom of D programming, even though with this freedom come tough questions as to the design of the program.

On Thursday, 21 November 2013 at 11:07:15 UTC, Chris wrote:
> On Thursday, 21 November 2013 at 09:57:35 UTC, Bienlein wrote:
>> On Thursday, 21 November 2013 at 09:33:04 UTC, Bienlein wrote:
>>> What puzzles me is the enormous activity in the Go forum. Only
>>> the Python forum has that much traffic. It seems to me that
>>> people are all that happy if they have a language with which they
>>> can just start hacking around on something.
>>>
>>> That is because Go doesn't force anyone to think about design.
>>> The only design-level construct it has is the class an that's it.
>>> Embedding is truly only to save coding effort not having to type
>>> in dereferenciation chains as in C. There is nothing except
>>> classes, but no inheritance, traits, mixins, overriding, etc. So
>>> there is nothing that forces you to think about your design in
>>> Go. And you don't have to know about manual memory management as
>>> in Rust.
>>>
>>> -- Bienlein
>>
>> I forgot to say that I really don't know what this will end up in
>> ...
>
> I'm wary of languages that are hyped by big companies or the web programming community. First there was Java which is still getting face lifts and plastic surgery. Then there was Ruby, "the way to go", but it hasn't convinced me yet. If all these languages are "soooo good", why do people still feel the need to come up with new solutions (cf. all the new languages for the JVM)? The answer is probably "tunnel vision" design and development. The language designers offer one ideology and users don't have to think when designing their programs. Simple as that. If you have a big company to back this up, people will think "it's THE ultimate best ever" language. Personally, I enjoy the freedom of D programming, even though with this freedom come tough questions as to the design of the program.


You mean like C and C++ were by AT&T? Or FORTRAN and PL/I/M by IBM?

Java was not the first one.

Languages need a corporate sponsor or a killer framework to gain market share.

Luckily we can now point to Facebook as possible corporate sponsor.

--
Paulo