Featherweight Go

Post by ptomato » Sun, May 31, 2020, 11:10 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #102

pcwalton wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn't. Go is popular because of the names and organization behind it, as well as the fact that it's useful for a lot of people despite the lack of generics. Certainly, a lot of people are attracted to Rob Pike's rather idiosyncratic preferences, tastes, and nostalgia for the early days of Unix, which are on display in a lot of Go's design decisions, like the lack of generics. But lots of random people have p…

The "names and organization behind it" thing is needlessly condescending (not to mention false), and the ability to get things done without generics basically restates David's point. Was there something in this paper that you felt unfairly treated Rust, the language you represent on these threads? Because otherwise, I can't see what would motivate you to join this thread to snipe. I'm with David, for what it's worth.…

Post by lazyjones » Sun, May 31, 2020, 11:29 PM UTC

c-cube wrote: post #116

lazyjones wrote: post #32

Thanks for reminding me how the rampant abuse of nearly unreadable mathematical notation for things that can be easily expressed in concise natural language contributed to (voluntarily) shortening my academic career. But more seriously, it's interesting how this produces publications before actual implementations.

If you want to reason about low level compiler optimizations, learn some assembly language. If you want to reason about type systems, learn how to read basic typing rules, it's not complicated. Sometimes planning before implementing is a good thing, or does even language design need to be agile™?

Post by hombre_fatal » Sun, May 31, 2020, 11:39 PM UTC

baby wrote: post #97

xkapastel wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And why on earth would you say that?

because it's a breeze to read Golang, due in parts to the lack of generics

    for i := len(a)/2 - 1; i >= 0; i-- {
        opp := len(a) - 1 - i
        a[i], a[opp] = a[opp], a[i]
    }

Post by kasey_junk » Sun, May 31, 2020, 11:45 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #102

pcwalton wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn't. Go is popular because of the names and organization behind it, as well as the fact that it's useful for a lot of people despite the lack of generics. Certainly, a lot of people are attracted to Rob Pike's rather idiosyncratic preferences, tastes, and nostalgia for the early days of Unix, which are on display in a lot of Go's design decisions, like the lack of generics. But lots of random people have p…

The "names and organization behind it" thing is needlessly condescending (not to mention false), and the ability to get things done without generics basically restates David's point. Was there something in this paper that you felt unfairly treated Rust, the language you represent on these threads? Because otherwise, I can't see what would motivate you to join this thread to snipe. I'm with David, for what it's worth.…

Post by psanford » Sun, May 31, 2020, 11:56 PM UTC

pcwalton wrote: post #94

baby wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say the popularity of Go stems from the lack of generics.

No, it doesn't. Go is popular because of the names and organization behind it, as well as the fact that it's useful for a lot of people despite the lack of generics. Certainly, a lot of people are attracted to Rob Pike's rather idiosyncratic preferences, tastes, and nostalgia for the early days of Unix, which are on display in a lot of Go's design decisions, like the lack of generics. But lots of random people have p…