On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 2:29 AM, FRIGN <d...@frign.de> wrote: > On Mon, 2 May 2016 11:12:08 +1000 > Timothy Rice <t.r...@ms.unimelb.edu.au> wrote: > > Hey Timothy, > >> A more experienced developer replied that in fact Go has comparable speed >> to C but does not lead to the same memory management challenges, thus >> should usually be preferred. It appears that most interest in C these days >> is from people who need to work with Arduinos. >> >> So, while we're on the (off-)topic of comparing the suckiness of various >> languages, what do people here think about Go? > > thank you for bringing that up! > I'd jump into Go right away if it wasn't for the binary sizes. Go may have > comparable speeds to C and makes a lot of things much simpler to do, but > the binary sizes are just insane. They'll address this in the upcoming > versions, but until then, I'll not look into it. > Once the day comes and a hello world goes below 800K (400K, ...), I'll > definitely look into it. > > Cheers > > FRIGN > > -- > FRIGN <d...@frign.de> >
I'd love to use Go. When using the vim-go plugin, programming becomes a breeze. However, my main issue is the fact the I can't use *.so in native go and I can't build .so files from go code. :S At least, they don't make it easy in the slightest, you'd have to dive into C in order to use them. The file size is a good thing to point out though :) It means that as I develop for the Pi or the CHIP that I will have to consider those limitations as well... ~ Frostyfrog ^.^
