a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes:
Comparing Go to another computer language -- do you recognize it?
http://www.cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/
If you skip to the conclusion, you'll be better off.
The author has an interesting point.
Go (the language) is not really ground-breaking.
I don't
J Kenneth King wrote:
a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes:
Comparing Go to another computer language -- do you recognize it?
http://www.cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/
If you skip to the conclusion, you'll be better off.
The author has an interesting point.
Go (the language) is not really
Le Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:30:16 -0600, Robert Kern a écrit :
particularly constrained environments like editors that may not be
extensible at all.
I'm not really an expert on this, but I think most good editors /are/
extensible (through plugins, scripts or other things).
You can get away with
Aahz wrote:
In article 7ms7ctf3k2a7...@mid.individual.net,
Gregory Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
However, Go's designers seem to favour using the absolute minimum
number of characters they can get away with.
Although if they *really* wanted that, they would have dropped most of
the
Le Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:36:33 -0600, Robert Kern a écrit :
I think there is an overall design sensibility, it's just not a
human-facing one. They claim that they designed the syntax to be very
easily parsed by very simple tools in order to make things like syntax
highlighters very easy and
On Nov 23, 2:47 am, Antoine Pitrou solip...@pitrou.net wrote:
Le Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:36:33 -0600, Robert Kern a écrit :
I think there is an overall design sensibility, it's just not a
human-facing one. They claim that they designed the syntax to be very
easily parsed by very simple tools
On 2009-11-23 04:47 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Le Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:36:33 -0600, Robert Kern a écrit :
I think there is an overall design sensibility, it's just not a
human-facing one. They claim that they designed the syntax to be very
easily parsed by very simple tools in order to make
Robert Kern wrote:
On 2009-11-23 04:47 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Le Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:36:33 -0600, Robert Kern a écrit :
I think there is an overall design sensibility, it's just not a
human-facing one. They claim that they designed the syntax to be very
easily parsed by very simple tools
Le Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:54:19 -0600, Robert Kern a écrit :
Not really. The idea was to make the language easily parsed and lexed
and analyzed by *other* tools, not written in Go, that may have limited
capabilities.
Well, if Go doesn't allow you to write libraries usable from other low-
level
On 2009-11-23 14:47 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Le Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:54:19 -0600, Robert Kern a écrit :
Not really. The idea was to make the language easily parsed and lexed
and analyzed by *other* tools, not written in Go, that may have limited
capabilities.
Well, if Go doesn't allow you to
Robert Kern wrote:
The easier it is to write *a* parser/analyzer for the
language in any other programming language, the more tools you will get
for a broader range of runtime environments, particularly constrained
environments like editors that may not be extensible at all.
Seems to me that
In article 7ms7ctf3k2a7...@mid.individual.net,
Gregory Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
However, Go's designers seem to favour using the absolute minimum
number of characters they can get away with.
Although if they *really* wanted that, they would have dropped most of
the semicolons
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
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:12:36 -0800, Aahz wrote:
Comparing Go to another computer language -- do you recognize it?
Here is a language so far ahead of its time that it was not only an
improvement on its predecessors but also on nearly all its successors.
- C. A. R. Hoare (although he was
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
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
On Nov 21, 11:20 am, John Roth johnro...@gmail.com wrote:
Go is simply C with most (but not all) of the warts
removed and some more modern features added.
Syntax-wise, I find myself disappointed that they didn't
do as good a job of removing the warts as they could
have.
For example, there
Comparing Go to another computer language -- do you recognize it?
http://www.cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/
--
Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) * http://www.pythoncraft.com/
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly
On Nov 20, 7:12 pm, a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote:
Comparing Go to another computer language -- do you recognize it?
No, it predates my entry into the computer biz.
http://www.cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/
--
Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) * http://www.pythoncraft.com/
19 matches
Mail list logo