Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Go in Go

talks.golang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 156 posts

Re: Go in Go

#61

Post by pjmlp »

microtonal wrote: post #52
fizixer wrote: post #47

Fun fact: what's common between Rob Pike, Bjarne Stroustrup, Larry Wall, Guido van Rossum, and so many other language inventors? They're all C programmers!

Bjarne Stroustrup Wasn't CFront written in C++?[1] (Of course, the initial version of C with classes was probably written in C.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cfront

What to expect from an AT&T employee?

Which languages do you think guys at Microsoft, Apple and Google get to choose?

Those developed by their employers or others?

Re: Go in Go

#62

Post by krzrak »

Looking at the title, my first thought was that somebody is making fun of all those posts "[something] in Go" ;)

Re: Go in Go

#64

Post by andrewchambers »

jballanc wrote: post #57
andrewchambers wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, any newer version works. You can build 1.5 with 1.5, you will be able to build 1.6 with 1.5 and 1.6.

Right, but if someone surreptitiously deleted all Go compiler binaries from the world, then we'd have to go back to compiling the C source of 1.4... Of course, that's the nature of bootstrapping! If someone managed to erase all the software from all the computers in the world, we'd have to go back and find an "Old world" Mac and use the on-die Forth compiler to write a C compiler so we could start compiling things ag…

Provided people didn't forget. Recreating from memory will take a fraction of the time. I would go for a lisp interpreter in assembly then implement a c compiler in that.

Re: Go in Go

#65

Post by zatkin »

enneff wrote: post #7
zatkin wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, they run an entire web server just for slides?

They're not just slides. Some of the slides have code that you can click to run: http://talks.golang.org/2012/concurrency.slide

My lack of knowledge resulted in downvotes. Thanks for the reply.

Re: Go in Go

#66

Post by ExpiredLink »

microtonal wrote: post #52
fizixer wrote: post #47

Fun fact: what's common between Rob Pike, Bjarne Stroustrup, Larry Wall, Guido van Rossum, and so many other language inventors? They're all C programmers!

Bjarne Stroustrup Wasn't CFront written in C++?[1] (Of course, the initial version of C with classes was probably written in C.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cfront

Probably the only C++ program he ever wrote.

Re: Go in Go

#67

Post by ngrilly »

zatkin wrote: post #5
thirsteh wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://godoc.org/golang.org/x/tools/cmd/present

Wow, they run an entire web server just for slides?

If you don't care about executing the code, you can save the slides to a PDF. I did this in Chrome many times and it works well.

Re: Go in Go

#68

Post by Kurtz79 »

Unless I missed it, it is surprising the lack of benchmarks or mentioning how compile speed compares with the previous iteration.

I'm not saying it would be necessary slower than a compiler written in C, if they wrote the more critical parts in assembler, but you would think compiling speed would be one of the outstanding discussion points, after a major rewrite.

Re: Go in Go

#69

Post by Aissen »

ClassicFarris wrote: post #19

Can some one answer this question. It says that Go1.4 will be needed to compile Go1.5. Does this mean that Go1.4 will always be needed, even for Go1.6 and beyond? So are they essentially locking things to the Go1.4 "C" code, then updating on top of that?

Yes. It means that anytime you want to add a new supported architecture, you'll need to bootstrap through Go 1.4.

Otherwise, I'm guessing that for Go 1.6, they'll rely on you having a binary distribution of 1.5 (probably from your distribution, or their website), etc.

Re: Go in Go

#70

Post by shurcooL »

Kurtz79 wrote: post #68

Unless I missed it, it is surprising the lack of benchmarks or mentioning how compile speed compares with the previous iteration. I'm not saying it would be necessary slower than a compiler written in C, if they wrote the more critical parts in assembler, but you would think compiling speed would be one of the outstanding discussion points, after a major rewrite.

There were a few slides with numbers and detailed performance graphs in Andrew's preceding talk. See http://talks.golang.org/2015/state-of-go-may.slide#10 and nearby slides.
Post reply on HN