Somebody criticizing a language he freely admits to never having used.
Nothing interesting to see here.
Google Go: Good For What?
11–20 of 40 posts
Re: Google Go: Good For What?
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basically, not much (depending on which compiler chain you are using). The Plan9 based compilers (which compile at light speed) don't produce great code.
They don't produce great code because they are optimized for compilation speed. IIRC, the plan is to have your quick to compile compiler and your fast execution time compiler..
It's not the plan; they already exist: gc is the default, fast suite of compilers; gccgo is a Go front-end for GCC.
Re: Google Go: Good For What?
#13From a previous Go blog post by the same author: Go decided to use a foreign syntax to C++, C and Java programmers. They borrows forward declarations from BASIC (yep, you heard me right…BASIC), creating declarations that are backwards from what we’ve been using for close to 20 years "Yep, you heard me right... BASIC". Consider carefully how seriously you want to take this blog.
Go's declaration syntax has some benefits: http://blog.golang.org/2010/07/gos-declaration-syntax.html
And they didn't borrow the declaration syntax from BASIC, but from Pascal: http://golang.org/doc/go_faq.html#ancestors
At the time Pascal was invented BASIC distinguished variable types via name postfixes like % and $.
Also, a "forward declaration" is not what the author seems to think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_declaration
Re: Google Go: Good For What?
#14Did the author change the title? It now reads "Google Go: Good for what?", although the article (or, for that matter, the link) still quite clearly suggests (and explicitly says at the end) that the answer is 'nothing'.
Re: Google Go: Good For What?
#15Go is a young language with a growing community that should only get better as more minds come to it.
For me it's very accessible for rapidly developing heavy-lifting tools, in particular networking tools. It's not the only language but it's served me well when I've reached for it.
Re: Google Go: Good For What?
#16Somebody criticizing a language he freely admits to never having used. Nothing interesting to see here.
By that token, there is nothing interesting to see in most of the language advocacy posts on HN.
Re: Google Go: Good For What?
#17Did the author change the title? It now reads "Google Go: Good for what?", although the article (or, for that matter, the link) still quite clearly suggests (and explicitly says at the end) that the answer is 'nothing'.
The conclusion is that "Go is good for absolutely nothing."
Re: Google Go: Good For What?
#18From a previous Go blog post by the same author: Go decided to use a foreign syntax to C++, C and Java programmers. They borrows forward declarations from BASIC (yep, you heard me right…BASIC), creating declarations that are backwards from what we’ve been using for close to 20 years "Yep, you heard me right... BASIC". Consider carefully how seriously you want to take this blog.
I haven't written any Go, but the FAQ ( http://golang.org/doc/go_faq.html#principles ) says: "There are no forward declarations and no header files; everything is declared exactly once." Is the author just wrong, or has the language changed since the FAQ was last updated?
He confuses forward declarations with "declaring the type before the variable name".
Re: Google Go: Good For What?
#19It's worth noting that this post is from December 2009.
Exactly.
Re: Google Go: Good For What?
#20I'm genuinely curious - Scala is faster and better performant, what is there in GO that there isn't in Scala? I mean, if you were to build a highly scalable web app, why would you choose one over the other? Any thoughts??