J Kenneth King wrote:
a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes:
Comparing Go to another computer language -- do you recognize it?
http://www.cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/
If you skip to the conclusion, you'll be better off.
The author has an interesting point.
Go (the language) is not really ground
a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes:
> Comparing Go to another computer language -- do you recognize it?
>
> http://www.cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/
If you skip to the conclusion, you'll be better off.
The author has an interesting point.
Go (the language) is not really ground-breaking.
I don't u
Le Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:30:16 -0600, Robert Kern a écrit :
> particularly constrained environments like editors that may not be
> extensible at all.
I'm not really an expert on this, but I think most good editors /are/
extensible (through plugins, scripts or other things).
> You can get away wit
Robert Kern wrote:
The easier it is to write *a* parser/analyzer for the
language in any other programming language, the more tools you will get
for a broader range of runtime environments, particularly constrained
environments like editors that may not be extensible at all.
Seems to me that
On 2009-11-23 14:47 PM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Le Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:54:19 -0600, Robert Kern a écrit :
Not really. The idea was to make the language easily parsed and lexed
and analyzed by *other* tools, not written in Go, that may have limited
capabilities.
Well, if Go doesn't allow you to
Le Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:54:19 -0600, Robert Kern a écrit :
>
> Not really. The idea was to make the language easily parsed and lexed
> and analyzed by *other* tools, not written in Go, that may have limited
> capabilities.
Well, if Go doesn't allow you to write libraries usable from other low-
lev
Robert Kern wrote:
On 2009-11-23 04:47 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Le Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:36:33 -0600, Robert Kern a écrit :
I think there is an overall design sensibility, it's just not a
human-facing one. They claim that they designed the syntax to be very
easily parsed by very simple tools in
On 2009-11-23 04:47 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Le Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:36:33 -0600, Robert Kern a écrit :
I think there is an overall design sensibility, it's just not a
human-facing one. They claim that they designed the syntax to be very
easily parsed by very simple tools in order to make thing
On Nov 23, 2:47 am, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Le Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:36:33 -0600, Robert Kern a écrit :
>
>
>
> > I think there is an overall design sensibility, it's just not a
> > human-facing one. They claim that they designed the syntax to be very
> > easily parsed by very simple tools in order
Le Mon, 23 Nov 2009 02:36:33 -0600, Robert Kern a écrit :
>
> I think there is an overall design sensibility, it's just not a
> human-facing one. They claim that they designed the syntax to be very
> easily parsed by very simple tools in order to make things like syntax
> highlighters very easy an
Aahz wrote:
In article <7ms7ctf3k2a7...@mid.individual.net>,
Gregory Ewing wrote:
However, Go's designers seem to favour using the absolute minimum
number of characters they can get away with.
Although if they *really* wanted that, they would have dropped most of
the semicolons and used inden
In article <7ms7ctf3k2a7...@mid.individual.net>,
Gregory Ewing wrote:
>
>However, Go's designers seem to favour using the absolute minimum
>number of characters they can get away with.
>
>Although if they *really* wanted that, they would have dropped most of
>the semicolons and used indentation-b
On Nov 21, 11:20 am, John Roth wrote:
>
Go is simply C with most (but not all) of the warts
removed and some more modern features added.
Syntax-wise, I find myself disappointed that they didn't
do as good a job of removing the warts as they could
have.
For example, there are good reasons for
On Nov 21, 6:11 pm, Steve Howell wrote:
> On Nov 21, 11:20 am, John Roth wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 21, 8:40 am, Duncan Booth wrote:
>
> > > a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote:
> > > > Comparing Go to another computer language -- do you recognize it?
>
> > > >http://www.cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go
On Nov 21, 11:20 am, John Roth wrote:
> On Nov 21, 8:40 am, Duncan Booth wrote:
>
> > a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote:
> > > Comparing Go to another computer language -- do you recognize it?
>
> > >http://www.cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/
>
> > Yes, spotted it at the first 'fi'.
>
> This isn't the
On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:12:36 -0800, Aahz wrote:
> Comparing Go to another computer language -- do you recognize it?
"Here is a language so far ahead of its time that it was not only an
improvement on its predecessors but also on nearly all its successors."
- C. A. R. Hoare (although he was actu
On Nov 21, 8:40 am, Duncan Booth wrote:
> a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote:
> > Comparing Go to another computer language -- do you recognize it?
>
> >http://www.cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/
>
> Yes, spotted it at the first 'fi'.
This isn't the first time anyone has criticized Go. The interesting,
On Nov 20, 7:12 pm, a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote:
> Comparing Go to another computer language -- do you recognize it?
No, it predates my entry into the computer biz.
>
> http://www.cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/
> --
> Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/
Comparing Go to another computer language -- do you recognize it?
http://www.cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/
--
Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverl
19 matches
Mail list logo
