141 ms·
you know what they say about Go being modern right?
by derengel 12y ago
you know what they say about Go being modern right?
- Joky 12y agoplease, enlighten me :)
- jakevn 12y agoFor better or worse, Go's design is anything but modern. It lacks things such as immutability and generics. It also perpetuates the mistake of including a run-time type error, null (nil).
- tomp 12y agoMore precisely, Go has generics (along with overloading), they are just not available to users of the language.
- Joky 12y agoNote that modern does not mean perfect. I'm not sure you answer could not fall into the "this-language-lacks-my-favorite-cool-fancy-feature-so-it-is-necessarily-an-old-fashioned-crappy-piece-of-s*" syndrome?
- jakevn 12y agoWere they actually fancy or cool, maybe. They're rather basic features among statically typed languages. Also, I'm not trying to say Go is bad or that I dislike it. It's simply not a modern language as far as design goes.
- masklinn 12y agoThat it might have deserved the moniker if it had been released around the same time as java.
- coldtea 12y agoMake that a few decades before actually: http://cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/ http://cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/
- masklinn 12y agoWell it does have a structural type system (one of the few other languages with one being OCaml, '96), a GC (popularised/made acceptable by Java '95) and provides language-level support for CSP (Occam '83)
- Joky 12y agoThanks for the link, that was very interesting to read! I didn't know Algol (I knew the name and how "historical" it is but not the details).
- twic 12y agoHadn't seen this before. This is brilliant. Thanks. So, who's up for an Algol-15 project?