C vs GO

#1

Post by akg » Thu, Jun 14, 2012, 9:24 AM UTC

C vs GO
crypto.stanford.edu

Re: C vs GO

#2

Post by FixThisPOS » Thu, Jun 14, 2012, 10:11 AM UTC

"As a rule, never start a new line with an opening brace; it belongs with the previous line."

Wrong. That makes no sense.

Re: C vs GO

#3

Post by simias » Thu, Jun 14, 2012, 10:11 AM UTC

Damn. I can't comment on the Go listings, but could he make his C code any less readable?

What's the point of making the code so dense anyway? Without syntax highlighting I gave up pretty quickly.

Re: C vs GO

#4

Post by gouranga » Thu, Jun 14, 2012, 10:24 AM UTC

Interesting comparisons.

However (not slating Go, which I think is excellent), I genuinely think Go is going to go the same way as plan9 eventually. Unfortunately, its predecessor (C) is good enough, much as UNIX was good enough compared to plan9.

Re: C vs GO

#5

Post by revelation » Thu, Jun 14, 2012, 10:37 AM UTC

I can't do system programming using Go on a platform for which there is no compiler. There is probably a reasonable C compiler for every platform in existence out there.

Re: C vs GO

#6

Post by Devilboy » Thu, Jun 14, 2012, 10:38 AM UTC

gouranga wrote: post #4

Interesting comparisons. However (not slating Go, which I think is excellent), I genuinely think Go is going to go the same way as plan9 eventually. Unfortunately, its predecessor (C) is good enough, much as UNIX was good enough compared to plan9.

The big win for go over c is the goroutines - cheap and easy multithreading built right into the language.

Re: C vs GO

#7

Post by Devilboy » Thu, Jun 14, 2012, 10:40 AM UTC

revelation wrote: post #5

I can't do system programming using Go on a platform for which there is no compiler. There is probably a reasonable C compiler for every platform in existence out there.

Right now there's Go compilers for Windows, Mac and Linux. I'm sure others will follow soon.

Re: C vs GO

#8

Post by nakkiel » Thu, Jun 14, 2012, 10:40 AM UTC

revelation wrote: post #5

I can't do system programming using Go on a platform for which there is no compiler. There is probably a reasonable C compiler for every platform in existence out there.

Well, back in the days it was pretty much the same thing for C. When someone needed to target a platform it used to mean writing a compiler for the said platform.

Re: C vs GO

#9

Post by gouranga » Thu, Jun 14, 2012, 10:42 AM UTC

Devilboy wrote: post #6

gouranga wrote: post #4

Interesting comparisons. However (not slating Go, which I think is excellent), I genuinely think Go is going to go the same way as plan9 eventually. Unfortunately, its predecessor (C) is good enough, much as UNIX was good enough compared to plan9.

The big win for go over c is the goroutines - cheap and easy multithreading built right into the language.

I agree entirely - they are great, but in all the Go I've written (which totals about 50kloc so far as a porting project), I haven't actually used them past anything I would have done with zmq in C.

Re: C vs GO

#10

Post by aperture » Thu, Jun 14, 2012, 11:02 AM UTC

revelation wrote: post #5

I can't do system programming using Go on a platform for which there is no compiler. There is probably a reasonable C compiler for every platform in existence out there.

Probably, but realize that at first this wasn't true. Go needs time to grow, just as C grew to different systems.

Looking at other systems such as Haiku shows that porting Go is encouraged, the only issues have to deal with assumptions in the build (in this case, I think /bin/env/bash is included everywhere, there's no global variable to change this definition from different OS types).

One day we may see a change in Go for different platforms, but I don't think it will prove to hinder that many people, only the niche groups. And for all intents and purposes, Go is built for practical application (!! Don't kill me !!), which systems programming on plan9 or haiku may not be considered "practical" at the moment.

EDIT: for clarity.