The Go Programming Language, or: Why all C-like languages except one suck.

I really like some of the ideas in Go however it still hasen't hit that critical mass that languages need to hit to really make it in the crowded world of programming languages. This is going to be even more difficult for Go then it was for Python or Ruby since they both can serve very well as prototyping language or glue languages. As a systems language Go needs to be able to gain traction from nothing.

Re: The Go Programming Language, or: Why all C-like languages except one suck.

#5

Post by tomjen3 » Thu, Mar 08, 2012, 6:25 PM UTC

Actually, all languages suck because there are benefits and tradeofs to every design decision -- cross compitable binary format means JIT compilers, garbage collection means more wasted memory, etc. It is all tradeofs.

Re: The Go Programming Language, or: Why all C-like languages except one suck.

#6

Post by sukuriant » Thu, Mar 08, 2012, 6:27 PM UTC

cobrausn wrote: post #2

So while C may be as lightweight as it can get, it's not really suitable for projects with more than 10k LOC. I believe John Carmack would have something to say about this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Tech_3

Isn't the linux kernel more than 10k lines of code, too?

And GIMP?

Re: The Go Programming Language, or: Why all C-like languages except one suck.

#7

Post by Scriptor » Thu, Mar 08, 2012, 6:32 PM UTC

sukuriant wrote: post #6

cobrausn wrote: post #2

So while C may be as lightweight as it can get, it's not really suitable for projects with more than 10k LOC. I believe John Carmack would have something to say about this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Tech_3

Isn't the linux kernel more than 10k lines of code, too? And GIMP?

And numerous compilers and interpeters and other system-level software.

The author might be talking about consumer-oriented software, but still saying that C isn't suitable for large codebases is very presumptuous.

disingenuous was the wrong word

Re: The Go Programming Language, or: Why all C-like languages except one suck.

#8

Post by cperciva » Thu, Mar 08, 2012, 6:36 PM UTC

cobrausn wrote: post #2

So while C may be as lightweight as it can get, it's not really suitable for projects with more than 10k LOC. I believe John Carmack would have something to say about this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Tech_3

For that matter, libc is considerably more than 10 kLOC (on FreeBSD 9.0, it's about 140 kLOC), and it's hard to think of a more stereotypical block of C code than that.

Re: The Go Programming Language, or: Why all C-like languages except one suck.

#9

Post by why-el » Thu, Mar 08, 2012, 6:38 PM UTC

sek wrote: post #3

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2631964

Thanks. I was starting to wonder why this is not generating as many comments as it normally would have for this type of articles.

Re: The Go Programming Language, or: Why all C-like languages except one suck.

#10

Post by angrycoder » Thu, Mar 08, 2012, 6:45 PM UTC

cobrausn wrote: post #2

So while C may be as lightweight as it can get, it's not really suitable for projects with more than 10k LOC. I believe John Carmack would have something to say about this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id_Tech_3

If you want to put forth the requirement that you and everyone else on your team must be as good as John Carmack, sure.