111–120 of 265 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am you there. Mercurial was more friendly to us Windows developers. But with Microsoft embracing Git this isn't any longer the case.
Git is equally hostile to everyone! Long live Git. (Maybe the way to advance the poor Gui user interaction experience is to write frontends for it?)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it was Rob Pike who later said he regretted using the term "systems programming" to describe Go. They never meant the phrase to mean purely operating system tools and programs (ie. not web applications or interactive end-user applications), which would be rather limiting. Instead, he said he said they meant it as a language for composing systems, as for example a typical SOA web site may be, or even for appli…
Real systems programming would be possible with a little more help. Meaning a few more operations exposed in unsafe. The problem is that the average developers never saw Oberon line of languages or are unaware how much of libc is actually written in Assembly. Maybe with Go 1.5 fully re-written in Go, it will be easier to sell this scenario.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And now things just got interesting. I'll put my money on the availability of Go on Android being the catalyst for its future hockey stick growth.
They'd have to make Dalvik a compiler target. Could work, though.
There is a new range syntax[1]. The release notes say it's rarely used, but makes code cleaner. In which cases would the syntax be useful? [1] https://golang.org/doc/go1.4#forrange
If they added support for `range 10` to iterate 0-9 this would be useful for doing things a certain number of times. Now it's probably mostly useful for emptying iterators.
it already exists...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because we want a good code review system, and GitHub doesn't have that. More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8715529 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8605204
Gerrit looks pretty horrid to use to be honest.
This 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 wa…
It’s possible that we are due for another generation of developers to make the same journey of discovery of why vendor-specific technology solutions have larger drawbacks than what is initially apparent.
① This is also, incidentally, why Unix proliferated as an operating system – it was and is, for all intents and purposes, a vendor-independent platform for development at the operating system level.
Earlier 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…
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.
A name is important, as it is a symbol. As long as the language is called “Go”, Google will always have power over it, no matter who actually does most of the work, and thus the fear will still be there. (Yes, “Go” is symbolically the same as “Google Programming Language All Access”. It’s as if Microsoft released something called “MSCode”.)