On 03/17/2010 05:03 PM, bearophile wrote:
Adam D. Ruppe:
It says exactly what it does, and enables something you couldn't do
before.
Even assembly says what it does, but here I want more sugar :-) It
helps.
How is that a hack?
It shows too much the machinery, this can lead to bugs, requires more
code, requires more memory to remember it, you need more time to read
it and see if/where it's wrong.
The Go language sucks.
In future it can suck less :-) And even a bad product or ignorant
person can give useful suggestions. The authors of Go are not
ignorant people: Robert Griesemer, Rob Pike and Ken Thompson. I am
not even worth brushing their sandals :-)
Me neither, but we should judge Go on its own merit.
They are giving a lesson in
almost the limits of minimalism in a modern language.
I honestly don't believe that's the case. If you're looking for such
lessons, there are plenty of much better examples of minimalistic
languages. Go is simply an unfinished language; it doesn't have the kind
of features that make a minimalistic language be also comprehensive.
There are problems for which Go does not have an answer yet and that's
simply because an answer hasn't been thought of yet. From what I see so
far, it's unlikely revolutionary solutions are right down the corner. Go
is a rehash of old ideas - but fortunately fixes the typo in O_CREAT.
Andrei
