On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 04:29:11PM -0700, Andrew Gwozdziewycz wrote: > Given this effort, and the fact that they've gotten pretty damn far > towards being usable, I'd say you can't *possibly* argue that "they > all *epic-ly* [sic] fail at the kernel step." (emphasis mine).
Like Hurd. > Of course, you didn't mention rust in your initial list of "unperfect" > languages.... rust is better than go, or the other way around? Fight! (while I go code something in a subset of C). :) -- Sylvain
