On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:35 PM, Nick LaForge <nicklafo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I hope it won't seem rude to suggest it, but the go-nuts list is the > optimum place for your specific concerns. The Go authors read it and > are very conscientious in responding to serious questions. > > The Go authors did express confidence that GC performance could > eventually be made competitive, although I couldn't tell you whether > that has yet happened. I would nevertheless keep in mind that they > are experienced professionals (c.f. Inferno) and that you'd be wrong > to malign GC categorically based on your experiences with the > proliferation of various toy languages on the net. (I won't mention > names.) > > If you want a modern C++ or some other heavyweight language on Plan 9, > I'll point out that there was some talk in August about a LLVM port, > though you'll be hard pressed to find many here that desire it above > Go. > Well if I were funded and had an infinite amount of time I'd think LLVM for Plan 9 would be excellent, as well as Go on LLVM :-). > > Nick > > On 2/2/11, Jacob Todd <jaketodd...@gmail.com> wrote: > > And russ cox, and everyone else in the CONTRIBUTORS file. > > On Feb 2, 2011 12:39 AM, "Scott Sullivan" <sc...@ss.org> wrote: > > > >
