On Sunday, July 22, 2012 10:10:43 Paulo Pinto wrote: > Am 22.07.2012 01:13, schrieb Nick Sabalausky: > > 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. > > How is this different from ANSI/ISO C, which is considered a systems > programming language?
It can actually use raw pointers and the like? It's my understanding that pretty much all of the low level "system" stuff like that is hidden from you in Go. So, the result would be a bit like calling Java a systems language because you can use JNI to get at low level stuff. - Jonathan M Davis
