Re: [BangPypers] Google Go
Did the Godfather quote scare you off? :) On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Roshan Mathews rmath...@gmail.com wrote: I [shall carefully reply to] you because I had [searched my mail and found] that you were a serious man, to be treated with respect. But I must say no to you and let me give you my reasons. It's true I have a lot of friends in [software], but they wouldn't be so friendly if they knew my business was [pontificating] instead of [flaming] which they consider a harmless vice. But [pontification], that's a dirty business. On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Harish Mallipeddi harish.mallipe...@gmail.com wrote: -- Roshan Mathews http://teamtalk.im ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
Re: [BangPypers] Google Go
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 2:23 PM, varunthac...@aol.in wrote: I just heard about Google Go.My first reaction was of excitement.But when i read about it i'm clueless as to what is it aiming for? What do every feel about it? Did you see the video [1] linked from that link? They say it's for systems programming. There are already two mails about Go on this list. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwoWei-GAPo -- Roshan Mathews http://teamtalk.im ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
Re: [BangPypers] Google Go
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Noufal Ibrahim nou...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 3:07 PM, Mahadevan R mdevan.foo...@gmail.com wrote: [..] By Robert Griesemer, Rob Pike, Ken Thompson, Ian Taylor, Russ Cox, Jini Kim and Adam Langley - The Go Team [..] That caught my eye too but another language? But I don't see the Python connection at all here. Go is mostly in the C family (basic syntax), with significant input from the Pascal/Modula/Oberon family (declarations, packages), plus some ideas from languages inspired by Tony Hoare's CSP, such as Newsqueak and Limbo (concurrency) In the entire FAQ the word Python is just mentioned once. The Python line seems to be a marketing thing to me. Also this line is funny. The company says that Go is experimental, and that it combines the performance and security benefits associated with using a compiled language like C++ with the speed of a dynamic language like Python Heh, speed of Python and security of C++ ? I thought it should be the other way around! Who did the marketing for this...! -- ~noufal http://nibrahim.net.in ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers -- --Anand ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
Re: [BangPypers] Google Go
[snip] Also this line is funny. The company says that Go is experimental, and that it combines the performance and security benefits associated with using a compiled language like C++ with the speed of a dynamic language like Python Heh, speed of Python and security of C++ ? I thought it should be the other way around! Who did the marketing for this...! One presumes they meant development speed. -- Asokan Pichai *---* We will find a way. Or, make one. (Hannibal) ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
Re: [BangPypers] Google Go
But I don't see the Python connection at all here. Yeah! I jumped the line without reading. Actually going through now and downloading the stuff I cant see much from Python perspective, that bloody language is full of braces, but yes syntactically its more sugary and clean I guess it might be a lesser learning curve for someone from Python background, learning Go than C++. -- Ramdas S +91 9342 583 065 ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
Re: [BangPypers] Google Go
On 11/11/2009 04:17 PM, Ramdas S wrote: But I don't see the Python connection at all here. Yeah! I jumped the line without reading. Actually going through now and downloading the stuff I cant see much from Python perspective, that bloody language is full of braces, but yes syntactically its more sugary and clean seriously ?? no, really, are you serious ? you got more sugary from Titlecase.Method.Names ? (Printf now requires a damn shift key !! what was ken thompson thinking ??). That was my first reaction. Well, other than that, I think it is pretty nice language ...but doesn't really /stand out/ for anything in particular (like python's simplicity and beauty did, when I first made its acquaintance). Then again I am not a polyglot as far as programming is concerned ...so I might not be able to appreciate it's value ...yet ... cheers, - steve -- random non tech spiel: http://lonetwin.blogspot.com/ tech randomness: http://lonehacks.blogspot.com/ what i'm stumbling into: http://lonetwin.stumbleupon.com/ ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
Re: [BangPypers] Google Go
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Anand Balachandran Pillai abpil...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Noufal Ibrahim nou...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Anand Balachandran Pillai abpil...@gmail.com wrote: [..] The company says that Go is experimental, and that it combines the performance and security benefits associated with using a compiled language like C++ with the speed of a dynamic language like Python Perhaps they meant speed of development and the security associated with strong static typing. Upon 2nd reading, I also thought they did, but not a very good disambiguation there I daresay. But security benefits associated to a compiled language - I fall flat there since I don't see any correlation with a language being compiled and its security! Pretty shoddy marketing this... That's what the big boys of the world wants you to believe. I had met a very senior official in the government a techy himself and spent 3 hours showing him virtues of Python and Django, hoping that they will change the RFP terms. I found out yesterday that the application has to be developed on a proven technology like Java,C++ or C#. When I spoke to the gentleman he said his consultant said that dynamically typed languages are not safe for mission critical work. The work is far from being mission-critical is another point altogether. -- ~noufal http://nibrahim.net.in ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers -- --Anand ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers -- Ramdas S +91 9342 583 065 ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
Re: [BangPypers] Google Go
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 5:30 PM, Ramdas S ram...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Anand Balachandran Pillai abpil...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Noufal Ibrahim nou...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 3:59 PM, Anand Balachandran Pillai abpil...@gmail.com wrote: [..] The company says that Go is experimental, and that it combines the performance and security benefits associated with using a compiled language like C++ with the speed of a dynamic language like Python Perhaps they meant speed of development and the security associated with strong static typing. Upon 2nd reading, I also thought they did, but not a very good disambiguation there I daresay. But security benefits associated to a compiled language - I fall flat there since I don't see any correlation with a language being compiled and its security! Pretty shoddy marketing this... That's what the big boys of the world wants you to believe. I had met a very senior official in the government a techy himself and spent 3 hours showing him virtues of Python and Django, hoping that they will change the RFP terms. I found out yesterday that the application has to be developed on a proven technology like Java,C++ or C#. When I spoke to the gentleman he said his consultant said that dynamically typed languages are not safe for mission critical work. The work is far from being mission-critical is another point altogether. The point is that so called compiled languages provide more security loop-holes than interpreted ones. C++/C for example provide liberal scope for buffer overflow exploits due to use of pointers and manual memory management. Accessing any buffer outside the scope of your data structures is always a potential window for the malicious hacker for buffer overflow exploits. And C/C++ are notorious for making this easy providing you with different ways of shooting yourself in the foot... -- ~noufal http://nibrahim.net.in ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers -- --Anand ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers -- Ramdas S +91 9342 583 065 ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers -- --Anand ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
Re: [BangPypers] Google Go
Go combines the development speed of working in a dynamic language like Python with the performance and safety of a compiled language like C or C++. It could just be the cynic in me, but this looks a lot like the marketing MS did to sell VB.Net to VB devs. Vague phrases that aren't precisely inaccurate, but aren't very clear, targeted at a very specific audience that (presumably) aren't experts in other areas. I understand it's fun to create and play with languages, so good stuff, but the goals of this language seem a little vague. I like the fact that Go has reflection (but I haven't looked into how comprehensive that is) but every other design goal they've talked about seems to be already met by Objective-C (systems programming, fast, statically typed, closures, elegant OO, gc etc. + message passing which Go doesn't mention). Plus I'm always vaguely annoyed every time I run into the assertion that static typing in some way increases the 'safety' of the code. Best, Sidu. http://blog.sidu.in http://twitter.com/ponnappa ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
Re: [BangPypers] Google Go
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Anand Balachandran Pillai abpil...@gmail.com wrote: Upon 2nd reading, I also thought they did, but not a very good disambiguation there I daresay. But security benefits associated to a compiled language - I fall flat there since I don't see any correlation with a language being compiled and its security! Pretty shoddy marketing this... The Go people said this? Where are you quoting from? -- Roshan Mathews http://teamtalk.im ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
Re: [BangPypers] Google Go
I found out yesterday that the application has to be developed on a proven technology like Java,C++ or C#. When I spoke to the gentleman he said his consultant said that dynamically typed languages are not safe for mission critical work. The work is far from being mission-critical is another point altogether. I do hope you snidely pointed out to him that half of Google runs on Python? :D Best, Sidu. http://blog.sidu.in http://twitter.com/ponnappa ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
Re: [BangPypers] Google Go
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Darkseid lorddae...@gmail.com wrote: I do hope you snidely pointed out to him that half of Google runs on Python? :D Which half? :) http://groups.google.com/group/unladen-swallow/browse_thread/thread/4edbc406f544643e -- Roshan Mathews http://teamtalk.im ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
Re: [BangPypers] Google Go
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Anand Balachandran Pillai abpil...@gmail.com wrote: The point is that so called compiled languages provide more security loop-holes than interpreted ones. C++/C for example provide liberal scope for buffer overflow exploits due to use of pointers and manual memory management. Accessing any buffer outside the scope of your data structures is always a potential window for the malicious hacker for buffer overflow exploits. And C/C++ are notorious for making this easy providing you with different ways of shooting yourself in the foot... That would be because C/C++ are weakly typed, not because they are compiled. Java is compiled right, does it have buffer overruns? I would assume that people are arguing for strong typing for efficiency. A language with run time dynamic dispatch, like say Python, will always be slower than something which is statically typed. The looks like Python, runs like C++ is more than just marketing speak. I don't know anything about Go, beyond that what I saw in the Youtube video. But that's the exact same ideal characteristic that other language designers are aiming for, from the few that I know. ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
Re: [BangPypers] Google Go
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 6:18 AM, steve st...@lonetwin.net wrote: On 11/11/2009 04:17 PM, Ramdas S wrote: But I don't see the Python connection at all here. Yeah! I jumped the line without reading. Actually going through now and downloading the stuff I cant see much from Python perspective, that bloody language is full of braces, but yes syntactically its more sugary and clean seriously ?? no, really, are you serious ? you got more sugary from Titlecase.Method.Names ? (Printf now requires a damn shift key !! what was ken thompson thinking ??). Case defines scope. Capitalised variables/methods (eg:Telephone) are public. ones starting in lower case (eg:telephone) are private. +PG ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
Re: [BangPypers] Google Go
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Roshan Mathews rmath...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Anand Balachandran Pillai abpil...@gmail.com wrote: Upon 2nd reading, I also thought they did, but not a very good disambiguation there I daresay. But security benefits associated to a compiled language - I fall flat there since I don't see any correlation with a language being compiled and its security! Pretty shoddy marketing this... The Go people said this? Where are you quoting from? Not sure if go people said this. But it is in the techcrunch link posted by Sriram, in another thread, 1st paragraph. http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/10/google-go-language/ I didn't make it up :-) -- Roshan Mathews http://teamtalk.im ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers -- --Anand ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
Re: [BangPypers] Google Go
That's what the big boys of the world wants you to believe. I had met a very senior official in the government a techy himself and spent 3 hours showing him virtues of Python and Django, hoping that they will change the RFP terms. I found out yesterday that the application has to be developed on a proven technology like Java,C++ or C#. When I spoke to the gentleman he said his consultant said that dynamically typed languages are not safe for mission critical work. The work is far from being mission-critical is another point altogether. That's because big boys define the market suitable to themselves. 1. it's easier to code more, take more time when using proven technology 2. It's easy to hire an IDE-aware monkey to do programming in proven technology. Anyway, one answer to proven technology bugaboo is Jython and IronPython. It's still Java(platform) and .NET with bi-directional compatibility. +PG ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
Re: [BangPypers] Google Go
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 6:07 PM, Darkseid lorddae...@gmail.com wrote: I found out yesterday that the application has to be developed on a proven technology like Java,C++ or C#. When I spoke to the gentleman he said his consultant said that dynamically typed languages are not safe for mission critical work. The work is far from being mission-critical is another point altogether. I do hope you snidely pointed out to him that half of Google runs on Python? :D That's been the original pitch since some time. These days there are creative lies also around some other companies which may have couple of teams working on Python, and I sometimes paint a picture that half the world runs on Python. Problem is actually consultants are somehow trusted more, than a peddler of services from a small IT shop. And since consultants also bill as a percent of the project costs, they want to ensure that stuff that'll take more hours to write, more hours to maintain, and almost always ends up in extended budget costs get sold... Well that's sad state of affairs Best, Sidu. http://blog.sidu.in http://twitter.com/ponnappa ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers -- Ramdas S +91 9342 583 065 ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
Re: [BangPypers] Google Go
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Roshan Mathews rmath...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Anand Balachandran Pillai abpil...@gmail.com wrote: The point is that so called compiled languages provide more security loop-holes than interpreted ones. C++/C for example provide liberal scope for buffer overflow exploits due to use of pointers and manual memory management. Accessing any buffer outside the scope of your data structures is always a potential window for the malicious hacker for buffer overflow exploits. And C/C++ are notorious for making this easy providing you with different ways of shooting yourself in the foot... That would be because C/C++ are weakly typed, not because they are compiled. Java is compiled right, does it have buffer overruns? I would assume that people are arguing for strong typing for efficiency. A language with run time dynamic dispatch, like say Python, will always be slower than something which is statically typed. The looks like Python, runs like C++ is more than just marketing speak. I don't know anything about Go, beyond that what I saw in the Youtube video. But that's the exact same ideal characteristic that other language designers are aiming for, from the few that I know. If you haven't noticed, Looks like Python, runs like C++ has a lot of marketing potential, since Python has a reputation to be the cleanest of languages w.r.t syntax and readability and C++, that of power and speed. So if you say this is not marketing speak, I am not buying it... If you are designing a language which you claim is ultimate in this decade, that is exactly the punch line you want... ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers -- --Anand ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
Re: [BangPypers] Google Go
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Anand Balachandran Pillai abpil...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Roshan Mathews rmath...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Anand Balachandran Pillai abpil...@gmail.com wrote: Upon 2nd reading, I also thought they did, but not a very good disambiguation there I daresay. But security benefits associated to a compiled language - I fall flat there since I don't see any correlation with a language being compiled and its security! Pretty shoddy marketing this... The Go people said this? Where are you quoting from? Not sure if go people said this. But it is in the techcrunch link posted by Sriram, in another thread, 1st paragraph. http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/10/google-go-language/ I didn't make it up :-) Straight from the horse's mouth: http://golang.org/doc/go_lang_faq.html#creating_a_new_language ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
Re: [BangPypers] Google Go
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 2:23 PM, varunthac...@aol.in wrote: I just heard about Google Go.My first reaction was of excitement.But when i read about it i'm clueless as to what is it aiming for? What do every feel about it? this is the link to the blog post announcing Go. http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2009/11/hey-ho-lets-go.html Regards, Varun Thacker http://varunthacker.wordpress.com FWIW (and for a laugh and a little healthy humorous digression), here's a great thread on one of its issues http://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=9 -- --- blog: http://blog.dhananjaynene.com twitter: http://twitter.com/dnene http://twitter.com/_pythonic ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
Re: [BangPypers] Google Go
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Dhananjay Nene dhananjay.n...@gmail.comwrote: On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 2:23 PM, varunthac...@aol.in wrote: I just heard about Google Go.My first reaction was of excitement.But when i read about it i'm clueless as to what is it aiming for? What do every feel about it? this is the link to the blog post announcing Go. http://google-opensource.blogspot.com/2009/11/hey-ho-lets-go.html Regards, Varun Thacker http://varunthacker.wordpress.com FWIW (and for a laugh and a little healthy humorous digression), here's a great thread on one of its issues http://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=9 On a more serious note, here's a thread on the unladen list suggesting some conflict between python and go within google http://groups.google.com/group/unladen-swallow/browse_thread/thread/4edbc406f544643e -- blog: http://blog.dhananjaynene.com twitter: http://twitter.com/dnene http://twitter.com/_pythonic ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
Re: [BangPypers] Google Go
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Anand Balachandran Pillai abpil...@gmail.com wrote: [..] Upon 2nd reading, I also thought they did, but not a very good disambiguation there I daresay. But security benefits associated to a compiled language - I fall flat there since I don't see any correlation with a language being compiled and its security! [..] Security in this context meaning, I can distribute binary blobs of code whose source you can't read. -- ~noufal http://nibrahim.net.in ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
Re: [BangPypers] Google Go
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Shashwat Anand anand.shash...@gmail.com wrote: Go - a son of C++ and python .. ?? to me it looked like verbose C .. first impression..not good. I mean it's ok..but not to the level of Google. We expect better from mythical Google engineers. Well, more than Google, you should be looking at Ken Thompson nad Rob Pike - the UNIX guys. I still have a hope somewhere deep down that Thompson and Pike would not be doing something silly. -- Thank you Balachandran Sivakumar Arise Awake and stop not till the goal is reached. Mail: benignb...@gmail.com Blog: http://benignbala.wordpress.com/ ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
Re: [BangPypers] Google Go
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Anand Balachandran Pillai abpil...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Roshan Mathews rmath...@gmail.com wrote: The looks like Python, runs like C++ is more than just marketing speak. If you haven't noticed, Looks like Python, runs like C++ has a lot of marketing potential, since Python has a reputation to be the cleanest of languages w.r.t syntax and readability and C++, that of power and speed. So if you say this is not marketing speak, I am not buying it... If you are designing a language which you claim is ultimate in this decade, that is exactly the punch line you want... Aye, that's why I say it's more than just marketing. It's positive, yes, subjective too, so maybe it's marketing-esque, but to just brush it off as marketing speak means you miss out on what it is aiming for. I don't know if it is there yet. Maybe it never will be, but there are people designing languages to that ideal, not to that punchline. Although, yes, I would grant that it does make a rather fine punchline. :) ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
Re: [BangPypers] Google Go
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 7:03 PM, Noufal Ibrahim nou...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Anand Balachandran Pillai abpil...@gmail.com wrote: [..] Upon 2nd reading, I also thought they did, but not a very good disambiguation there I daresay. But security benefits associated to a compiled language - I fall flat there since I don't see any correlation with a language being compiled and its security! [..] Security in this context meaning, I can distribute binary blobs of code whose source you can't read. That is obscurity, not security ;) -- ~noufal http://nibrahim.net.in ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers -- --Anand ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
Re: [BangPypers] Google Go
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Roshan Mathews rmath...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Anand Balachandran Pillai abpil...@gmail.com wrote: The point is that so called compiled languages provide more security loop-holes than interpreted ones. C++/C for example provide liberal scope for buffer overflow exploits due to use of pointers and manual memory management. Accessing any buffer outside the scope of your data structures is always a potential window for the malicious hacker for buffer overflow exploits. And C/C++ are notorious for making this easy providing you with different ways of shooting yourself in the foot... That would be because C/C++ are weakly typed, not because they are compiled. Java is compiled right, does it have buffer overruns? Going by the popular definition of weak/strong typing, what has weak typing in C/C++ anything to do with buffer overflow errors? Javascript is weakly typed but you don't have buffer overflow problems there. I would assume that people are arguing for strong typing for efficiency. A language with run time dynamic dispatch, like say Python, will always be slower than something which is statically typed. Again why would strong typing get you efficiency? -- Harish Mallipeddi http://blog.poundbang.in ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
Re: [BangPypers] Google Go
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Balachandran Sivakumar benignb...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Shashwat Anand anand.shash...@gmail.com wrote: Go - a son of C++ and python .. ?? to me it looked like verbose C .. first impression..not good. I mean it's ok..but not to the level of Google. We expect better from mythical Google engineers. Well, more than Google, you should be looking at Ken Thompson nad Rob Pike - the UNIX guys. I still have a hope somewhere deep down that Thompson and Pike would not be doing something silly. People are more likely to do altruistic things when they are young and work for just money when they are old... Derive - Just because Ken and co produced legendary stuff back in the 70s does not preclude them from producing shoddy stuff in the 2000's. -- Thank you Balachandran Sivakumar Arise Awake and stop not till the goal is reached. Mail: benignb...@gmail.com Blog: http://benignbala.wordpress.com/ ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers -- --Anand ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
Re: [BangPypers] Google Go
Javascript is weakly typed but you don't have buffer overflow problems there. That's something I've never understood even though the all powerful wikipedia says JS is weakly typed. Can someone give me an example to illustrate the weak typing? I would assume that people are arguing for strong typing for efficiency. A language with run time dynamic dispatch, like say Python, will always be slower than something which is statically typed. Again why would strong typing get you efficiency? I think Anand meant statically typed (he used strongly typed first and then used statically typed while clearly referring to the same thing). Static typing certainly allows for a great deal of compile time optimization, neh? Best, Sidu. Harish Mallipeddi wrote: On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 6:14 PM, Roshan Mathews rmath...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Anand Balachandran Pillai abpil...@gmail.com wrote: The point is that so called compiled languages provide more security loop-holes than interpreted ones. C++/C for example provide liberal scope for buffer overflow exploits due to use of pointers and manual memory management. Accessing any buffer outside the scope of your data structures is always a potential window for the malicious hacker for buffer overflow exploits. And C/C++ are notorious for making this easy providing you with different ways of shooting yourself in the foot... That would be because C/C++ are weakly typed, not because they are compiled. Java is compiled right, does it have buffer overruns? Going by the popular definition of weak/strong typing, what has weak typing in C/C++ anything to do with buffer overflow errors? Javascript is weakly typed but you don't have buffer overflow problems there. I would assume that people are arguing for strong typing for efficiency. A language with run time dynamic dispatch, like say Python, will always be slower than something which is statically typed. Again why would strong typing get you efficiency? ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
Re: [BangPypers] Google Go
Harish, I [shall carefully reply to] you because I had [searched my mail and found] that you were a serious man, to be treated with respect. But I must say no to you and let me give you my reasons. It's true I have a lot of friends in [software], but they wouldn't be so friendly if they knew my business was [pontificating] instead of [flaming] which they consider a harmless vice. But [pontification], that's a dirty business. On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Harish Mallipeddi harish.mallipe...@gmail.com wrote: Going by the popular definition of weak/strong typing, what has weak typing in C/C++ anything to do with buffer overflow errors? Javascript is weakly typed but you don't have buffer overflow problems there. Hmm... this is going to get tricky, since everyone seems to have different opinions on what these terms mean. I'm very confused about JavaScript. Why do you say it's weakly typed? I did a quick web search on this, and most people seem to agree with you, based on the fact that in JavaScript: hello + 10 hello10 10 + hello 10hello So everything can be, uh, promoted to a String. But can I, say, take an Object and treat it as a number? Or an Array as a String? Or is JavaScript weak in certain directions and strong in others? Maybe you should let on what you mean by strong/weak typing. What I meant by saying that weak typing in C/C++ causes buffer overruns is that everything is just a memory location, since you can arbitrarily switch between pointers and types, which means that you can't have sanity checks for array accesses (which are your buffer overruns) without changing the language itself. I would assume that people are arguing for strong typing for efficiency. A language with run time dynamic dispatch, like say Python, will always be slower than something which is statically typed. Again why would strong typing get you efficiency? Am I comparing apples and potatoes, if I am please do let me know. I say that run time dynamic dispatch is slow because you always need to look things up, specially in python since you can arbitrarily change anything at runtime, on the other hand, if you have a strongly typed language (thanks for catching that) then you know at compile time what you want your code to do, hence you don't have to find that out at runtime, time saved doing that makes your language faster all other things being equal. I could be horribly wrong, I don't know enough about programming languages to be sure. So please do let me know if you think so. How about this, lets make it less controversial and bring the talk back to safer ground: the best Python code will always be slower than high quality C++ code no matter how good the Python optimizers get. Speed might not be always important and yada-yada-yada, that's irrelevant to the last statement. I write more Python than C++, so yeah, I've heard of most of those reasons. Roshan ___ BangPypers mailing list BangPypers@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/bangpypers
