On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmx.com>wrote:
> On Saturday, July 21, 2012 19:13:20 Nick Sabalausky wrote: > > On Sat, 21 Jul 2012 14:41:05 +0200 > > > > Paulo Pinto <pj...@progtools.org> wrote: > > > Regarding systems programming, Go could actually play in the same > > > league as D > > > > [...] > > > > > The trick with Oberon, which Go also uses, is to have a special module > > > reckognised by the compiler with primitives to do the low tricks C > > > offers. Additionaly any function/method without body can be > > > implemented in Assembly. This is nothing new, Modula-2 already worked > > > like this. > > > > If a language has to resort to such "outside-of-the-language" tricks > > like that to do system software, then it's just simply not a systems > > language. > > I tend to agree. However, it's my understanding that when the Go folks talk > about Go being a "systems language," they mean that it's meant for building > large systems, not that it's meant for writing low-level stuff like > kernels, > which is what C++ and D mean when they call themselves systems languages. > So, > I believe that the core problem here is that the term is being used > differently > by different languages rather than Go claiming that they're a systems > language > in the C++/D sense when they have to rosert to outside of the language > tricks. > But I could be wrong about what they mean. > > - Jonathan M Davis > The Go people no longer refer to Go as a systems language. I believe they did intend for it to be a systems language in the same manner D is but over time they decided to focus less on that. Here's what Russ Cox said on that matter: "We removed the word 'systems' because it was too limiting. Go is more general than that. It is still a great language for writing systems." Regards, Brad Anderson