I read this too when Rob Pike (the creator of GO) tweeted the link. Shocking as it might seem as we have not heard or read much good about GO. This can only be verified when you have actually understood OO and tried your hands on GO and other languages in comparison.
Best regards, Vaidik Kapoor www.vaidikkapoor.info On 11 June 2011 21:54, A. Mani <[email protected]> wrote: > See http://www.syntax-k.de/projekte/go-review > ______________________________________________________ > Anyone comparing the appearance of Go source code to his favourite > C-oid gets a chance to express her basic attitude: Is Go partly like > what you love, or partly like what you hate? It has a bit of annoyance > for everyone, which is what you get when trying to do better. It > creates an own feeling, so you can't claim it just mimics some other > language. Well done! > > In the end, we get a simple and clean type system that is easy to > learn, but unusual. It might be a major obstacle in selling Go to CS > beginners, who usually get taught classic OO principles. Its > simplicity and safety, however, make it well-suited for self-taught > programmers. > > "Effective Go" is a great document to read if you come from a classic > OO background. It's important to have such a document, but it is not > complete enough. Researching and writing this review has taught me > more about Go than writing the application which I did in parallel. > There are so many things you are used to do which Go does differently > but equally well (or even better), and I wasn't aware of them. There > is a constant feeling of "Go can't do X" while it actually can do it > well, only way differently. > > For a fair image of what Go's potential is, note the age of Go. The > first release was less than 2 years ago and declared stable enough > since this year. Look at what Go already does today, and imagine what > would be possible if Go had the same commercial backing as Java or > JavaScript have. The best example of a successful introduction of a > new language is Java, and now compare Go's feature set to that of Java > 1.0. We have a winner here. > > But to leverage that potential, the language needs some momentum. > Either through an open, active and growing community, or through > corporate backing. I'd prefer the community, but for real-world > success, there probably has to be some corporate involvement. Bonus > points if Oracle messes up the Java business even more :) > > Really, Go can be the answer to the shortcomings of all currently > popular system programming languages, it just needs adoption. > > And as a final note, I have seen a fair amount of criticism of Go on > the internet, which I cannot ignore, so here it goes: Most of these > people didn't actually look at it. Go is different, even though it > still looks kinda-C. It isn't. It's not C++, nor Objective C, and it > doesn't try to be! So stop saying "Who needs Go when we have > C++/Objective C?" already. Check out how Go tries to solve the same > problems in a radically different way. Accept the fact that OO can be > done in different ways. You may have opted to ignore it, but if you > use JavaScript, you already use something that isn't class-based OO. > Do not just accept it, actively use the power of that different > approach. To the other ones, those who think Go isn't taking this far > enough: Remember this is a real-world language. And it is there. And > it works. What use is a beautifully constructed language that doesn't > get stable, finished or fast enough for real-world problems? It's easy > to nitpick on details, but to make it a real product, you need to > address all constraints. That's what Go does. > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > > > > > > Best > > A. Mani > > -- > A. Mani > ASL, CLC, AMS, CMS > http://www.logicamani.co.cc > > -- > Mailing list guidelines and other related articles: > http://lug-iitd.org/Footer > -- Mailing list guidelines and other related articles: http://lug-iitd.org/Footer
