On Monday, 17 February 2014 at 03:48:28 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
wrote:
------- Forwarded Message --------
From: Aram Hăvărneanu <[email protected]>
To: Jonathan Amsterdam <[email protected]>
Cc: golang-nuts <[email protected]>, Michael Jones
<[email protected]>, Jonathan Barnard
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [go-nuts] Re: Generics false dichotomy
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 11:03:38 +0100
D pays a huge penalty in compilation speed for generics. D
generics
are turing complete, making compilation time potentially
unbounded.
Dmd might build their standard library quickly, but this says
nothing
about the fundamental issue.
Potentially unbounded compilation times are unacceptable for
Go.
Go pays a huge penalty in execution speed. Go is turing
complete, making runtime potentially unbounded. The programs
written in Go that have actually been created might execute
quickly, but this says nothing about the fundamental issue.
Potentially unbounded execution times are unacceptable for D.
But Go's fundamental problems don't even stop there. In order
to build even just the Go compiler itself, a series of shell
scripts are provided
<http://code.google.com/p/go/source/browse/src>. Batch and bash
are both turing complete, therefore Go's very own buildscripts
have potentially unbounded compilation times. In reality, they
won't actually execute forever unless someone screws up and
does something stupid, but reality, of course, is unimportant.
What's *really* important here are highly unlikely scenarios
that have yet to ever actually surface and can't be handled
without resorting to such inexcusably difficult and drastic
measures as pressing Ctrl and C simultaneously.
Go-nuts really is nuts, apparently.
Worse, is that they think as acceptable to create templating
tools, similar to what Borland and others offered with their
compilers when templates started to be discusses at ISO.
Sometime around the mid 90's, almost 20 years ago!
Having a strong typed language without generics support in the
21st century is not understandable.
--
Paulo
