On Tuesday, 15 January 2019 13:43:55 UTC+2, Eric Raymond wrote: > > > Have you actually looked it what it outputs? > > If not, prepare to be horrified. Maintainability is an issue. >
Maybe it's a silly thought... Back in the 1950s compilers needed to be small so as to be at all executable. We now have monstrously large programs that perform the most amazing feats of code translation. But the language constructs that languages provide seem to still have their roots in those invented when a small memory footprint was essential, so perhaps the time has come to add much more complex idioms as constructs to future programming languages instead of providing lots of libraries. Such "idioms" are of course no more than fancy "generics", but once the idea that a "construct" rather than a formalised object like a function can be processed at compile time, it may open the door to recognising common code pattern (which is what optimisation already does) and make transpilers more practical. Am I outsmarting my own understanding? I'd been dreaming of more complicated language constructs for a very long time, inspired by Tcl, but I've never really paid the idea much attention. Lucio. -- 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.
