On Wed, 2018-05-02 at 02:51 +0000, TheDalaiLama via Digitalmars-d wrote: > […] > How did they get 'Go'... so wrong?
They didn't. A lot of people out there are using Go very effectively and thoroughly enjoying it. True it is a language by Google for Google, but it has massive traction outside Google. Go got a lot right. > Such 'smart' 'experienced' people .. came up with such an awful > language... I don't get it. Just because you think it is awful doesn't make it awful. Indeed Go got a lot right exactly because smart experienced people were involved in its development. People who have spent 40+ years designing languages generally do language design quite well. > 'For' is Go's 'while' - wtf!@!!!#! It works very well for those people who use it as it is meant to be used. > There's no substituion for taste...some have it.. some don't. Taste is a personal thing not an objective measure. That you dislike Go so much is fine, that is your opinion. That does not make it objective fact. Others really like Go, that is their opinion, and equally valid. It also is not objective fact. What can be shown consistently though is that the process (preferably lightweight) and channel model avoids much if not all the unpleasantness of shared memory multithreaded programming. Go has this built in and it makes it a very appealing language. Rust has channels but only heavyweight processes, at least at present in release form. D has heavyweight processes with message passing, but I couldn't seem to make it work for Me TV, I just got no message passing and lots of segfaults. > 'Experience' is irrelevant. Now that is just a rubbish statement. Experience can be crucial. cf. Roman architecture. Even people who claim to have no experience are in fact usually using knowledge gained by experience of others. -- Russel. ========================================== Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
