On Nov 21, 6:11 pm, Steve Howell <showel...@yahoo.com> wrote: > On Nov 21, 11:20 am, John Roth <johnro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 21, 8:40 am, Duncan Booth <duncan.bo...@invalid.invalid> wrote: > > > > a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote: > > > > Comparing Go to another computer language -- do you recognize it? > > > > >http://www.cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/ > > > > Yes, spotted it at the first 'fi'. > > > This isn't the first time anyone has criticized Go. The interesting, > > and somewhat sad, thing is that the entire mess can be explained > > very easily by looking at the beginning of the language design > > FAQ on the Go web site. See if you recognize the names of the > > principle people who designed it. > > > Yep. Go is simply C with most (but not all) of the warts > > removed and some more modern features added. Brought to you > > by the same people who brought you C and Unix all those years ago. > > The use of the Plan 9 toolchain is not a coincidence. > > The assertion that Go is simply C with warts removed and modern > features added is not surprising. > > If you read the Go FAQ, you will see that there is no claim anywhere > that they are trying to solve the problem that 40 years of language > development since Algol has not produced super-sexy quantum leaps of > improvement. Instead, they are trying to solve the problem that in > the last ten years, there haven not seen ANY improvement in systems > programming languages ("No major systems language has emerged in over > a decade"). The critics of Go probably fall into four categories: > > 1) Some do not understand the goals of the Go project itself, so > they are criticizing Go for not solving problems that were never in > Go's bailiwick to begin with. > 2) Some believe that Go does not deliver on its goal to modernize > systems programming languages. > 3) Some do not accept the premise that there has been no progress > outside of Go in the last ten years with regards to systems > programming languages, and they are wondering why Google invented Go > instead of embracing other technologies. > 4) Some people do not even believe that the problem is important--do > we actually need a modern systems programming language, or do we just > need modern programming languages to perform well under all > circumstances, or at least be adaptable? > > My list probably isn't even nearly exhaustive.
Like those who think Python programmers would be interedted in Go because it has an import statement. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list