On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 02:54:23PM +0100, Tobias Ulmer wrote:
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 02:24:41PM +0100, frederic wrote:
All this is more than just nit-picking. Pike claims a 10-20% loss
compared to C, which would still be quite good. However, the first
benchmarks tell another story at the moment
On 16/11/2009, frederic wrote:
>> Go has no inheritance, and that is
>> basically the root of all OO evil (and inheritance is in mainstream
>> programming considered the defining characteristic of any OO
>> language.)
>>
>
> Why do you think inheritance is the root of all evil?
>
> That's an impor
Compared to your grand-daddy's GC? Obviously yes. But no GC language
has yet prevailed against C in benchmarks.
I don't have any statistics, but I'm not so sure of that. At least, as I
said, depending on the use case. Heavily multi-threaded and dynamic
memory intensive code takes a huge hit
On Sun 15 Nov 2009 at 08:42:16 PST Anselm R Garbe wrote:
Now Go became a target of those feature zealots to try their luck
screwing it up with all the missing features they know from C++. At
least that makes C less vulnerable since they can go play with
something else.
What I really dislike ab
Go troll someone else.
uriel
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 7:33 PM, frederic wrote:
>>> So now closures are not an issue anymore?
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with closures per se, hacking them up on top of
>> C is what is wrong.
>>
>
> That's basically what you replied to me in an other thread:
> "I'
So now closures are not an issue anymore?
There is nothing wrong with closures per se, hacking them up on top of
C is what is wrong.
That's basically what you replied to me in an other thread:
"I'm pretty sure that if C featured closures, Anselm and many others
would promptly and cleverly han
[2009-11-15 11:24] Kurt H Maier
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 11:19 AM, markus schnalke wrote:
> >
> > Can you provide a link please.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/golang-nuts/msg/1a20c3113a465959
Thanks.
meillo
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 11:19 AM, markus schnalke wrote:
> [2009-11-15 16:42] Anselm R Garbe
>> By far the best
>> go-nuts mail I've seen so far was ken's response to the billion dollar
>> mistake yesterday.
>
> Can you provide a link please.
http://groups.google.com/group/golang-nuts/msg/1a20c3
[2009-11-15 16:42] Anselm R Garbe
>
> By far the best
> go-nuts mail I've seen so far was ken's response to the billion dollar
> mistake yesterday.
Can you provide a link please.
meillo
2009/11/15 Uriel :
> I don't expect Go to kill C, there will always be a place for a
> portable assembler language, but Go will push C to the niche where it
> works best, while C++ and Java should be completely obliterated.
Now Go became a target of those feature zealots to try their luck
screwing
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 04:50:42PM +0100, Uriel wrote:
As kris said, that doesn't compare languages, but implementations, and
not just implementations of the language/compilers, but
implementations of the benchmark itself.
Rog (of Vitanuova fame) posted an update to the Go implementation of
the
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Kris Maglione wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 04:33:06PM +0100, Uriel wrote:
>>
>> Next you will tell me that because I said OO is evil, I must be
>> against function pointers. Go has no inheritance, and that is
>> basically the root of all OO evil (and inheritanc
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 2:24 PM, frederic wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 12:43:46PM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
>>>
>>> On 11/15/09, frederic wrote:
>>> and sacrifices some efficiency to have a few higher level language
>>> features (gc, interface, string, map, package, init, defer, closure..)
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 04:33:06PM +0100, Uriel wrote:
Next you will tell me that because I said OO is evil, I must be
against function pointers. Go has no inheritance, and that is
basically the root of all OO evil (and inheritance is in mainstream
programming considered the defining characterist
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Benoit T wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 06:29:01AM +0100, Uriel wrote:
>> Go is the only hope for the future of the software industry, the only
>> weapon with a chance of killing the abominable mutant monster of C++
>> and the double-headed zombie of Java/C#.
>
>
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 9:58 AM, frederic wrote:
>> I'm quite picky, and I have yet to see anything I don't like in Go,
>
> So now closures are not an issue anymore?
There is nothing wrong with closures per se, hacking them up on top of
C is what is wrong.
> And you don't see the OO
> non-non-su
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 02:54:23PM +0100, Tobias Ulmer wrote:
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 02:24:41PM +0100, frederic wrote:
All this is more than just nit-picking. Pike claims a 10-20% loss
compared to C, which would still be quite good. However, the first
benchmarks tell another story at the moment
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 02:24:41PM +0100, frederic wrote:
Be careful what you say. None of those features necessarilly
sacrifice efficiency. In fact, garbage collection can be a huge
performace boon when implemented properly, in that garbage can be
lazily freed in hunks and with minimal locking
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 02:24:41PM +0100, frederic wrote:
> All this is more than just nit-picking. Pike claims a 10-20% loss
> compared to C, which would still be quite good. However, the first
> benchmarks tell another story at the moment:
> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u64/benchmark.php?tes
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 12:43:46PM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
On 11/15/09, frederic wrote:
and sacrifices some efficiency to have a few higher level language
features (gc, interface, string, map, package, init, defer, closure..)
as a bonus it has multi tasking support (go, chan, select), go
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 12:43:46PM +0100, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
On 11/15/09, frederic wrote:
and sacrifices some efficiency to have a few higher level
language features (gc, interface, string, map, package, init,
defer, closure..) as a bonus it has multi tasking support (go,
chan, select), goo
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 06:29:01AM +0100, Uriel wrote:
> Go is the only hope for the future of the software industry, the only
> weapon with a chance of killing the abominable mutant monster of C++
> and the double-headed zombie of Java/C#.
hear hear! there has to be a better way :)
> Having Go,
On 11/15/09, frederic wrote:
> So now C isn't the perfect programming language any more?
>
c was not perfect
but probably it's still the simplest language to program a ram machine
go is safe and nice: the common mistakes of c programs can be avoided
in exchange it gives less control to the progr
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 6:16 AM, Uriel wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Moritz Wilhelmy wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 05:59:19PM +0100, Preben Randhol wrote:
>>> Syntactically the language seems a bit confusing at first and
>>> unfortunately too similar to C.
>>
>> It looks a like a
I'm quite picky, and I have yet to see anything I don't like in Go,
So now closures are not an issue anymore?And you don't see the OO
non-non-support (sic) [from the FAQ: "is Go an OO language?" "-Yes and
no"] as a problem? Beware, if you use Go's methods you might write
OO-style code with
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Aled Gest wrote:
> 2009/11/15 Uriel :
>> What dependencies?
>
> These ones:
>
>> It has a runtime and a set of libraries, no
>> different from C++
>
> Those are drawbacks IMO. I avoid the C standard library where I can
> and I certainly avoid the C++ standard libra
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Jorge Vargas wrote:
> can we please remove all the lisp/C talk from this thread. I came here
> to see what the dwm folks had to say about go and of course the
> remarkable people working on them.
Go is the only hope for the future of the software industry, the onl
2009/11/15 Uriel :
> What dependencies?
These ones:
> It has a runtime and a set of libraries, no
> different from C++
Those are drawbacks IMO. I avoid the C standard library where I can
and I certainly avoid the C++ standard library like the plague, and
just in case it wasn't clear, I hate C++
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Moritz Wilhelmy wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 05:59:19PM +0100, Preben Randhol wrote:
>> Syntactically the language seems a bit confusing at first and
>> unfortunately too similar to C.
>
> It looks a like a messy mix of C and pascal. Would be better
> without t
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Aled Gest wrote:
> 2009/11/11 Preben Randhol :
>> Syntactically the language seems a bit confusing at first and
>> unfortunately too similar to C.
>
> I don't get what people have against the C syntax. It's the cleanest
> and most logical syntax I've come across so
After having looked into Go quite a bit my conclusion is that C is
still the language of choice for my/our projects.
I want to carry on with my goals such as stali, cleaned up dwm and st
(which is still on the backburner) in C.
I don't want to get involved too much into some new language that
loo
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 03:47:46AM +, Aled Gest wrote:
> > C preprocessor is stupid. C macros are ugly and dangerous, except of
> > simplest cases.
>
> I totally agree that the C pre-processor sucks. It's ill thought out
> and needs replacing. However, going back to what you were saying about
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:54 AM, Jorge Vargas wrote:
> can we please remove all the lisp/C talk from this thread. I came here
> to see what the dwm folks had to say about go and of course the
> remarkable people working on them. And I found a bunch of people that
> are not going to convince each o
can we please remove all the lisp/C talk from this thread. I came here
to see what the dwm folks had to say about go and of course the
remarkable people working on them. And I found a bunch of people that
are not going to convince each other otherwise. If you simply refuse
my question then please t
2009/11/12 markus schnalke :
> You said something like that a quick look at the syntax lets you judge
> if it is clean/nice/whatever or not.
>
> I posted the above quote to show you that even simple things may not
> be easy to see.
I said "It doesn't take long to judge clarity". If it's not easy t
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 08:39:24PM +0100, Dieter Plaetinck wrote:
> take network interfaces on Linux for example. they have no device file
> and it makes perfect sense.
No it doesn't.
--
Jake Todd
// If it isn't broke, tweak it!
pgpIfsqzRRzSH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 06:16:00AM +1100, Jessta wrote:
> Lisp has the 'everything is a list' problem and there is lots of
> behaviour that doesn't fit well in to this. Consistancy can make
> things intuitive, but you shouldn't sacrifice intuitiveness for
> consistancy.
Lisp does not have this pro
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 06:16:00 +1100
Jessta wrote:
> The thing is that human beings don't really work well with lots of
> things that are very similar, we get confused. Human beings prefer
> things to be similar enough that we can use our previous knowledge to
> figure them out but different enough
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 03:32:37PM +, Aled Gest wrote:
> Not really. I don't like having forced polish notation for everything,
> if I did I'd just write everything in ASM.
You have no clue what Lisp is. It's a meta-language. See below.
> Well you've failed in that attempt. I just don't see a
On 13/11/2009, Niki Yoshiuchi wrote:
> I think part of what makes Lisp "elegant" and "clean" is the simplicity of
> its grammar. It has the shortest and simplest grammar of all the major
> programming languages.
In fact a simplier grammar is binary notation, it's only got two
characters and you
[2009-11-12 15:32] Aled Gest
> 2009/11/12 markus schnalke :
> >
> > Remember: ``Unix is simple. It just takes a genius to understand its
> > simplicity.'' (dmr)
>
> Not quite sure what point you're trying to make here.
You said something like that a quick look at the syntax lets you judge
if i
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Niki Yoshiuchi wrote:
> > Here is C++'s grammar:
> http://www.csci.csusb.edu/dick/c++std/cd2/gram.html
> > Here is Lisp's grammar:
> > http://www.devincook.com/goldparser/doc/meta-language/grammar-LISP.htm
>
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Niki Yoshiuchi wrote:
> Here is C++'s grammar: http://www.csci.csusb.edu/dick/c++std/cd2/gram.html
> Here is Lisp's grammar:
> http://www.devincook.com/goldparser/doc/meta-language/grammar-LISP.htm
I don't think I've ever seen a lisp program that conforms to that
I think part of what makes Lisp "elegant" and "clean" is the simplicity of
its grammar. It has the shortest and simplest grammar of all the major
programming languages.
Here is C++'s grammar: http://www.csci.csusb.edu/dick/c++std/cd2/gram.html
Here is Lisp's grammar:
http://www.devincook.com/gold
2009/11/12 markus schnalke :
> Remember: ``Unix is simple. It just takes a genius to understand its
> simplicity.'' (dmr)
Not quite sure what point you're trying to make here. Unix has a nice
philosophy, there are plenty of poor implementations of that
philosophy though. If you're suggesting that
[2009-11-12 02:49] Aled Gest
> 2009/11/11 Antoni Grzymala :
> > Looks like you didn't give more than half a minute's time, to see what
> > Lisp's syntax (or rather the lack of it) is actually about. Your hopes
> > are vain.
>
> It doesn't take long to judge clarity.
Remember: ``Unix is simple.
2009/11/11 Mate Nagy :
> Hello,
>> I'm officially announcing a go excercise project called: godwm (dwm
>> implemented in Go)
> i'd be interested in helping with this
http://hg.suckless.org/godwm
Kind regards,
Anselm
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 22:14:12 +0100
Christoph Dibak wrote:
> I had to learn Ada at university. First I thought that this Pascal
> Syntax simply sucks. But then I realized that Ada is realy nice.
>
> The best part of Ada is that it is strongly-typed. I think also it is
> a good compromise between
2009/11/11 Antoni Grzymala :
> Looks like you didn't give more than half a minute's time, to see what
> Lisp's syntax (or rather the lack of it) is actually about. Your hopes
> are vain.
It doesn't take long to judge clarity. Perhaps experience is a
critical factor but to me it seems a lot easier
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 07:46:02PM +0100, Moritz Wilhelmy wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 06:00:53PM +0100, Preben Randhol wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:15:06 -0500
> > Kris Maglione wrote:
> >
> > > Looks more like Limbo/NewSqueak. And the mascot's kind of
> > > Glenda-ish (plus you mentio
[2009-11-11 18:53] Aled Gest
> 2009/11/11 markus schnalke :
> > Then you never tried Lisp!
>
> I hope that's sarcasm, because I wouldn't call requiring everything to
> be wrapped in parentheses clean :P
It wasn't.
I assume now even more, you never came much in contact with Lisp.
Laughing on th
Moritz Wilhelmy dixit (2009-11-11, 19:46):
> > On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:15:06 -0500
> > Kris Maglione wrote:
> >
> > > Looks more like Limbo/NewSqueak. And the mascot's kind of
> > > Glenda-ish (plus you mentioned Rob), so I wouldn't doubt it.
> > > If Rob was involved, I very much doubt that Ad
Aled Gest dixit (2009-11-11, 18:53):
> > Then you never tried Lisp!
>
> I hope that's sarcasm, because I wouldn't call requiring everything to
> be wrapped in parentheses clean :P
Looks like you didn't give more than half a minute's time, to see what
Lisp's syntax (or rather the lack of it) is a
Julien Steinhauser wrote:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 06:53:48PM +, Aled Gest wrote:
2009/11/11 markus schnalke :
Then you never tried Lisp!
I hope that's sarcasm, because I wouldn't call requiring everything to
be wrapped in parentheses clean :P
I guess this thread could
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 06:53:48PM +, Aled Gest wrote:
>
> 2009/11/11 markus schnalke :
> > Then you never tried Lisp!
>
> I hope that's sarcasm, because I wouldn't call requiring everything to
> be wrapped in parentheses clean :P
>
I guess this thread could easily turn into a big hairy trol
2009/11/11 markus schnalke :
> Then you never tried Lisp!
I hope that's sarcasm, because I wouldn't call requiring everything to
be wrapped in parentheses clean :P
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 06:00:53PM +0100, Preben Randhol wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:15:06 -0500
> Kris Maglione wrote:
>
> > Looks more like Limbo/NewSqueak. And the mascot's kind of
> > Glenda-ish (plus you mentioned Rob), so I wouldn't doubt it.
> > If Rob was involved, I very much doubt
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 05:59:19PM +0100, Preben Randhol wrote:
> Syntactically the language seems a bit confusing at first and
> unfortunately too similar to C.
It looks a like a messy mix of C and pascal. Would be better
without the pascal part.
[2009-11-11 17:40] Aled Gest
> 2009/11/11 Preben Randhol :
> > Syntactically the language seems a bit confusing at first and
> > unfortunately too similar to C.
>
> I don't get what people have against the C syntax. It's the cleanest
> and most logical syntax I've come across so far.
Then you n
2009/11/11 Preben Randhol :
> Syntactically the language seems a bit confusing at first and
> unfortunately too similar to C.
I don't get what people have against the C syntax. It's the cleanest
and most logical syntax I've come across so far.
Has anybody had any experience compiling Go on BSD ye
I miss the Brian Kernighan's tutorial...
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> 2009/11/11 Julien Steinhauser :
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:06:55AM +, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm officially announcing a go excercise project called: godwm (dwm
>>> implemented in Go)
>
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:15:06 -0500
Kris Maglione wrote:
> Looks more like Limbo/NewSqueak. And the mascot's kind of
> Glenda-ish (plus you mentioned Rob), so I wouldn't doubt it.
> If Rob was involved, I very much doubt that Ada was an
> intentional influence. Actally, it seems very much more
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:04:07 +
Anselm R Garbe wrote:
> Well there is gccgo for performance worried people.
At the moment the gccgo is slower than the 6g compiler, but according
to Rob the compiled code is better with gccgo
At the moment speed is 10-20% slower than pure C, but you get all t
2009/11/11 Julien Steinhauser :
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:06:55AM +, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>>
>> I'm officially announcing a go excercise project called: godwm (dwm
>> implemented in Go)
>>
>
> I see a second way of reading the name, I'm sure I'm not alone.
It must be by accident ;)
Kind r
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:06:55AM +, Anselm R Garbe wrote:
>
> I'm officially announcing a go excercise project called: godwm (dwm
> implemented in Go)
>
I see a second way of reading the name, I'm sure I'm not alone.
> Kind regards,
> Anselm
>
>
Hello,
> I'm officially announcing a go excercise project called: godwm (dwm
> implemented in Go)
i'd be interested in helping with this
Regards,
Mate
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:46:27PM +0100, pancake wrote:
About the compiler stuff..i dont really know if they can generate good code,
I mean, related to code optimizations they are assembling it all together in
a very good way, but I dont see any post optimization process which will
involve autom
2009/11/11 pancake :
> rob pike, russ cox and ken thomson are in the list of CONTRIBUTORS.
Yes, that makes me not ignore that lang.
> I will also like to know if there's any interface for C and how to use it.
It seems to be possible, though it's not officially supported yet wrt Russ:
Have a loo
rob pike, russ cox and ken thomson are in the list of CONTRIBUTORS.
I see 'go' as the limbo for the masses. Google did the things well (again).
They get the best people able to design a language and a compiler and put
it together in a single mashup.
The compiler is pretty similar to the plan9 o
[2009-11-11 11:06] Anselm R Garbe
>
> I'm officially announcing a go excercise project called: godwm (dwm
> implemented in Go)
Great name! :-)
meillo
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:22:42AM +0100, Preben Randhol wrote:
I noticed that Google has released and opened sourced the Go language
(http://golang.org). I watched the tech talk by Rob Pike and it seems
interesting, although it didn't answer all questions. Go seems to be based
on C, Python, Ada,
2009/11/11 Preben Randhol :
> I noticed that Google has released and opened sourced the Go language
> (http://golang.org). I watched the tech talk by Rob Pike and it seems
> interesting, although it didn't answer all questions. Go seems to be based
> on C, Python, Ada, Pascal/Modula/Oberon language
I noticed that Google has released and opened sourced the Go language
(http://golang.org). I watched the tech talk by Rob Pike and it seems
interesting, although it didn't answer all questions. Go seems to be based
on C, Python, Ada, Pascal/Modula/Oberon languages.
Though it would be interesting a
73 matches
Mail list logo
