On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> On the whole though I think that the language is not yet mature enough
>> to be able to seriously compete with more established languages like
>> Python or Java.
>
> Also, is there anything seriously lacking in Python, Java and C?
>
> I was
On 2014-03-10, flebber wrote:
> I was wondering if a better programmer than I could explain if
> the removal of OO features in golang really does offer an great
> benefit over python.
>
> An article I was reading ran through a brief overview of golang
> in respect of OO features
> http://areyoufuc
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 3:16 AM, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
> Chris Angelico :
>
>> Java's MI simply doesn't exist (that's perfectly pure!), although
>> implementing interfaces can do a lot of it; but then you end up
>> duplicating piles of code (on the other hand, that's nothing new in
>> Java code).
Chris Angelico :
> Java's MI simply doesn't exist (that's perfectly pure!), although
> implementing interfaces can do a lot of it; but then you end up
> duplicating piles of code (on the other hand, that's nothing new in
> Java code).
Java 8 has default methods for interfaces. That covers one pri
Le lundi 10 mars 2014 05:49:20 UTC+1, flebber a écrit :
>
>
> Why would a Python user change to go except for new and interesting?
>
>
Unicode
jmf
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 6:50 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
> The author points out that nested structures can be made optional by
> including a pointer to the structure instead of the structure itself.
> Again you can do the exact same thing in C++; in OOP this is usually
> described as a "has-a" relations
> Also, is there anything seriously lacking in Python, Java and C?
>
>
> Marko
>From their FAQ:
Go was born out of frustration with existing languages and environments for
systems programming. Programming had become too difficult and the choice of
languages was partly to blame. One had to ch
Ian Kelly :
> The description of how Go structs work is accurate from what I know of
> it, but I think the author goes astray in claiming that this is not
> OOP.
Call it "no-nonsense OOP." No wonder the color of the box was gray in
the example.
> On the whole though I think that the language is
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 10:49 PM, flebber wrote:
> I was wondering if a better programmer than I could explain if the removal of
> OO features in golang really does offer an great benefit over python.
>
> An article I was reading ran through a brief overview of golang in respect of
> OO features
On Monday, March 10, 2014 10:19:20 AM UTC+5:30, flebber wrote:
> I was wondering if a better programmer than I could explain if the removal of
> OO features in golang really does offer an great benefit over python.
That's a strange locution: You are suggesting that go had OOP and it was removed
-
I was wondering if a better programmer than I could explain if the removal of
OO features in golang really does offer an great benefit over python.
An article I was reading ran through a brief overview of golang in respect of
OO features
http://areyoufuckingcoding.me/2012/07/25/object-desorient
11 matches
Mail list logo
