Am 12.07.2014 14:54, schrieb Iain Buclaw via Digitalmars-d:
On 12 July 2014 11:27, Russel Winder via Digitalmars-d
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Fri, 2014-07-11 at 16:54 +0000, Chris via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[…]
I remember Java used to be "theeee" best thing ever. After years
of using it, however, I found out how restricted the language was
/ is. Still, it's been a success, because people believed all the
propaganda. What matters to me is not so much the odd fancy
feature, it's how well the language performs in general purpose
programming. Go was designed for servers and thus will always
have one up on D or any other language at that matter. But could
I use Go for what I have used D? Not so sure about that. Also,
like Java Go is a closed thing. D isn't. Once I read about D that
it shows what can be done "once you take a language out of the
hands of a committee". Go, like Java, will finally end up in a
cul de sac and will have a hard time trying to get out of it. Not
because the language is inherently bad, because it's in the hand
of a committee. Ideology kills a language. But it doesn't matter,
because people will use Go or whatever anyway, will _have_ to use
it.
People believed the FORTRAN propaganda, the COBOL propaganda, the Pascal
propaganda. I think we ought to distinguish good marketing from hype.
Java had good marketing, was in the right place at the right time, and
had a huge amount of hype as well.
If Go is better for server things than D then might as well stop trying
to use D at all.
Go was actually designed as a better C with CSP for concurrency and
parallelism.
Or a better Oberon, I haven't quite decided which yet... :)
No, Oberon is still better.
Active Oberon has concurrency support via active objects and contrary to
Go, has first class support for systems programming. Oh and the last
versions even had a primitive version of generics.
Only thing I dislike in Wirth's languages is the need of uppercase
keywords, but all modern editors can do a "replace as you type" kind of
thing anyway.
--
Paulo
