Nice. Now all I need is for someone to turn https://github.com/jcla1/gisp into a slightly more complete LISP and I'll have a nice environment for all kinds of ARM systems.
Edit: typo/autocorrect
Go 1.4 is released
61–70 of 265 posts
Re: Go 1.4 is released
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's open source.
While technically true, this has almost nothing to do with what I wrote. Huge code bases thrown over the wall, while technically “open source” does not a community make. A language named after a company with the overwhelming majority of development sponsored by that same company is not something you realistically envision someone forking, so the fear I spoke of is still there. Now, if the language was, say, maintaine…
Have you actually observed the Go community and how Go has been developed over the last five years? What you are saying are fair concerns in the abstract, but I cannot reconcile them with the reality of how the Go project operates.
You also seem unusually hung up on its name. It's not like it's called Google Programming Language All Access.
Re: Go 1.4 is released
#63Can someone give me a compelling reason to start programming in Go? My default language at the moment is C, or C++.
Once Go is installed, I can make a simple web app from scratch that displays parameters from the URL or request body in just over 95 seconds with Go, using only the standard library. I can cross-compile it for another OS and architecture, then deploy a single binary file without worrying about dependencies, dynamic linking, or segfaults. Try doing that in C/C++. Maybe a better comparison is to more systems-level appl…
You can get static linking in C/C++ with `gcc -static`.
Re: Go 1.4 is released
#64This relatively recent trend of company-specific languages annoys and disturbs me. I don’t ever want to be tied to a language and library ecosystem under the thumb of a single (large) corporation. Not Visual Basic, not .NET, not C#, not Objective C, not Go (It’s even named after the company, for crying out loud! Yes it is. Don’t try to claim otherwise). I’ve used Basic, I’ve used Pascal, I’ve used C, I’ve used Python…
I'm generally in agreement, but it's hard to say what languages will be considered "company-specific" in the future.
Go back in time 35 years and C could have been called that "AT&T specific language" Or the opposite: Objective C looked like a hopeful contender to be a widely-used language but it just never caught much traction outside the NeXT/Apple (and NeXT ended up buying the developer) and today it's almost completely associated with a single company's ecosystem.
Maybe in 4 years we'll be talking about the new features coming in "ISO Go19" and complaining that VisualGo still doesn't support all of Go18 yet. Who knows?
Re: Go 1.4 is released
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
While technically true, this has almost nothing to do with what I wrote. Huge code bases thrown over the wall, while technically “open source” does not a community make. A language named after a company with the overwhelming majority of development sponsored by that same company is not something you realistically envision someone forking, so the fear I spoke of is still there. Now, if the language was, say, maintaine…
How would communities around anything come to exist if everyone had the same attitude?
Look at how the communities around languages like Basic, Pascal, C, Lisp and Python have developed.
They were, from the beginning, open with development, releasing early and often, and were explicit about readily accepting large contributions from outsiders (and really did so). The creators were always open to the possibility that they themselves might not be the eternal keepers of the language, which allowed competition when others developed the language further.
Contrast this with the development of the languages I mentioned. They have done the opposite of these things.
Re: Go 1.4 is released
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once Go is installed, I can make a simple web app from scratch that displays parameters from the URL or request body in just over 95 seconds with Go, using only the standard library. I can cross-compile it for another OS and architecture, then deploy a single binary file without worrying about dependencies, dynamic linking, or segfaults. Try doing that in C/C++. Maybe a better comparison is to more systems-level appl…
You can still get segfaults in Go. "panic: runtime error: invalid memory address or nil pointer dereference"
But you also get a stack trace without needing an IDE and debugger.
Re: Go 1.4 is released
#67This relatively recent trend of company-specific languages annoys and disturbs me. I don’t ever want to be tied to a language and library ecosystem under the thumb of a single (large) corporation. Not Visual Basic, not .NET, not C#, not Objective C, not Go (It’s even named after the company, for crying out loud! Yes it is. Don’t try to claim otherwise). I’ve used Basic, I’ve used Pascal, I’ve used C, I’ve used Python…
If the non-company-specfic languages cannot keep up with the evolution company-specific languages show they will have a problem getting or keeping their users. I know it takes a lot of investment to build great tools, do marketing, evolve a language etc and currently some large companies seems to think that they get more of what they want by funding their own languages. If someone fund the free languages they same way they will probably evolve faster and get more users. There is also a problem of getting large groups of people and organizations to agree on something. This also slows down progress in some open/free projects. Sometimes it is easier to just decide for yourself.
Re: Go 1.4 is released
#68This relatively recent trend of company-specific languages annoys and disturbs me. I don’t ever want to be tied to a language and library ecosystem under the thumb of a single (large) corporation. Not Visual Basic, not .NET, not C#, not Objective C, not Go (It’s even named after the company, for crying out loud! Yes it is. Don’t try to claim otherwise). I’ve used Basic, I’ve used Pascal, I’ve used C, I’ve used Python…
I'm generally in agreement, but it's hard to say what languages will be considered "company-specific" in the future. Go back in time 35 years and C could have been called that "AT&T specific language" Or the opposite: Objective C looked like a hopeful contender to be a widely-used language but it just never caught much traction outside the NeXT/Apple (and NeXT ended up buying the developer) and today it's almost comp…
True, but today Go is still specific to Google. If it really catches on in the way you describe, then it will be a viable language. But not today.
Re: Go 1.4 is released
#69Can someone give me a compelling reason to start programming in Go? My default language at the moment is C, or C++.
You should be able to get up and running with Go extremely quickly if your default language is C. If there's a reason you must be using C rather than another language (require manual memory management, require code to be as fast as possible, etc.), then Go might not be applicable. Otherwise, Go feels like an updated C and I don't see a compelling reason not to invest a little time in checking it out for yourself.
> require code to be as fast as possible
It's also pretty easy to write the performance critical parts of the code in C and call them from Go.
Re: Go 1.4 is released
#70Can someone give me a compelling reason to start programming in Go? My default language at the moment is C, or C++.
It would be easier if you explain what type of programs you develop today in C or C++. In general terms Go is probably an easier and more productive language but you might lose some performance.