On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 8:52 AM <jake6...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 5:46:39 PM UTC-5, Eric Raymond wrote: >> >> On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 12:11:06 PM UTC-5, Jake Montgomery wrote: >>> >>> I would note that any tool that ports from C++, or even C, to Go is going >>> to produce ugly, unmaintainable, and non-idiomatic code, at best. >> >> >> These are two different cases. I agree that graceful C++ to Go >> transpilation is effectively impossible. >> >> On the other hand, I believe graceful, comment-preserving C to idiomatic-Go >> transpilation is almost possible. > > > I might believe that it could be comment-preserving and possible graceful, > and pretty much human readable. But I seriously doubt that it could ever > produce anything I would call idiomatic-Go. Perhaps we have different > definitions of that term. Aside from the line by line form, I also mean > "something that an experienced go programmer might write." Idomatic-Go by my > definition, would include the use of things like interfaces and methods. It > uses goroutines and channels where appropriate. That is what you want if you > want "real" go code that is usable and maintainable. > > "Transpilation" is really just the first step. It can get you to a working > code base, but turning it into truly idiomatic Go, that people want to deal > with, is work that needs to be done by humans. IIUC, that's what the go team > did with the compiler. Getting a Go version that was 100% > functionality-faithful to the original C was crucial. But it was only the > first step.
To be honest, the second step, making the compiler (and linker) idiomatic Go, is still in progress. Ian -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
