The Go Programming Language
-
LOL! Does the Go language involves manipulations of black and white tokens? In addition, is there a -ko compiler option to detect infinite loops, or -atari to detect dead code? Interesting enough, maybe I should have a go on this language (bad pun intended) Happy coding, Yves
-
Neither, obviously; and now I won't tell you about the Belgian beer I had last night. :-D
if (:beer: == :cool:) :bob: := :) ; else :bob: := :mad: ;
Luc Pattyn
I only read code that is properly indented, and rendered in a non-proportional font; hint: use PRE tags in forum messages
-
Interesting... This will kill me: if (a < b) f(); // INVALID for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) {} // INVALID Invalid!! But I've been typing it that way for 20 years! Grrrrr.... Plus the use of the pascal like := Still interesting though.
- S 50 cups of coffee and you know it's on! Code, follow, or get out of the way.
Steve Echols wrote:
Plus the use of the pascal like :=
Not exactly. As far as I understood, the := operator in Go is a declaration of a new variable + initialization, not only association. Pascal:
A:= B <=> A = B;
Go:
A:= B <=> int A = B; (where int is an implied type of B)
Greetings - Jacek
-
There is a plethora of newer, safer, easier to ease low level language. I particularly like D[^]. I even think they have some native compiler of a variant of C#. Anyway, sadly, none seems to take off or have good commercial and wide library support.... Hopefully Go will go further! :-)
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
modified on Tuesday, November 10, 2009 7:56 PM
Yes, D is likely the best; but I don't use it, C# pays the bills (at least it did).
-
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
I wish they departed from C syntax even more...
There's a tendency to make most new languages use C or C-like syntax. I think they're frightened of alienating the C-syntax fanatics. :laugh: In the 21st century we ought to be moving on from C syntax IMO.
Kevin
Not frightened; it's a practical matter. The feeling is that there is so much C code (and coders) out there that making people rewrite it is a bad idea. So if the new language can use existing C code pretty much as it is, then the language has a better chance of acceptance. As I recall the D website used to say that a piece of C code passed through the D compiler should either compile and work as it did under C or fail. I don't see that notation anymore. At any rate, the D website does say: "Have a short learning curve for programmers comfortable with programming in C or C++." I know I had a tough time changing from Pascal to C, I don't want to have to go through that again, especially if the new language is more verbose.
-
Not frightened; it's a practical matter. The feeling is that there is so much C code (and coders) out there that making people rewrite it is a bad idea. So if the new language can use existing C code pretty much as it is, then the language has a better chance of acceptance. As I recall the D website used to say that a piece of C code passed through the D compiler should either compile and work as it did under C or fail. I don't see that notation anymore. At any rate, the D website does say: "Have a short learning curve for programmers comfortable with programming in C or C++." I know I had a tough time changing from Pascal to C, I don't want to have to go through that again, especially if the new language is more verbose.
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
The feeling is that there is so much C code (and coders) out there that making people rewrite it is a bad idea
How is creating a new language with different syntax rewriting C code? Why can't it just map to C code if that is a requirement? I accept that providing a familiar syntax makes the language initially more appealing and therefore from a practical point of view that's why they do it. But in an ideal world we should be able to focus on the concepts and move to more readable syntaxes. Having said that I do consider C# and Java to be advances over C/C++ in readability. And I don't consider this to be that big an issue. :)
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
especially if the new language is more verbose
There's a difference between verbose and readable. I consider VB .NET to be verbose. I consider a language such as Eiffel to be readable, a bit terser than Pascal or Ada. Eiffel looks verbose superficially but that is an illusion. It's actually more concise than C++, C# or Java in certain contexts because it's more declarative.
Kevin
-
Ho, an other MS research thingy!!! :-)
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
-
Ho, an other MS research thingy!!! :-)
A train station is where the train stops. A bus station is where the bus stops. On my desk, I have a work station.... _________________________________________________________ My programs never have bugs, they just develop random features.
Described as "incubation." It will be interesting to see whether it gets any further than this. May just end up like Spec# with select features rolled into C#. Though C# is starting to get rather top heavy now.
Kevin
-
I'll stick with C# for now and continue to await The Coming Of The Great New Language.
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
await The Coming Of The Great New Language.
The Osmosian Order is on the case... ;)
-
Interesting... This will kill me: if (a < b) f(); // INVALID for (i = 0; i < 10; i++) {} // INVALID Invalid!! But I've been typing it that way for 20 years! Grrrrr.... Plus the use of the pascal like := Still interesting though.
- S 50 cups of coffee and you know it's on! Code, follow, or get out of the way.
Steve Echols wrote:
Plus the use of the pascal like :=
As if the 'var' keyword in javascript and actionscript wasn't bad enough. I still wonder why they called it 'java'-script.
-
Interesting...[^] Ken Thompson and Rob Pike are among the language designers. Personally, I dislike C-style syntax and a mandatory garbage collector (in a system language).
Go.NET :)
-
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
The feeling is that there is so much C code (and coders) out there that making people rewrite it is a bad idea
How is creating a new language with different syntax rewriting C code? Why can't it just map to C code if that is a requirement? I accept that providing a familiar syntax makes the language initially more appealing and therefore from a practical point of view that's why they do it. But in an ideal world we should be able to focus on the concepts and move to more readable syntaxes. Having said that I do consider C# and Java to be advances over C/C++ in readability. And I don't consider this to be that big an issue. :)
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
especially if the new language is more verbose
There's a difference between verbose and readable. I consider VB .NET to be verbose. I consider a language such as Eiffel to be readable, a bit terser than Pascal or Ada. Eiffel looks verbose superficially but that is an illusion. It's actually more concise than C++, C# or Java in certain contexts because it's more declarative.
Kevin
I mean if you have working code (perhaps library code), you may not want to port it to a new language if it would not be easy. Likewise, you don't want to have to retrain or replace your staff. Ergo, having a new language that is very similar to a widely used language just makes good sense.
