Google introduces new programming language called "Go"
124 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Elspin;18345896]Lack of windows: 90% of user base on release lost. If they want this to be used seriously, that was a major fail.[/QUOTE]
Who cares? It's not like it'll die off if it's not used instantly by the whole world. Plus, I bet the percentage of Linux users that are developers is a lot higher than the percentage of Windows users that are, so you can't just go by pure user base.
It's easier for them to write it on Linux then port to Windows than to do the other way around, because Windows is the odd platform that doesn't comply with anything; on the other hand, Linux/BSD (And by extension, Mac OS X) play quite well with each other.
[QUOTE=gparent;18346128]
It's easier for them to write it on Linux then port to Windows than to do the other way around, because Windows is the odd platform that doesn't comply with anything; on the other hand, Linux/BSD (And by extension, Mac OS X) play quite well with each other.[/QUOTE]
POSIX :love:
90% of the user base good joke.
This isn't a game, we're talking about a programming language written by people who work for a company who's primary interests include hosted applications.
[QUOTE=Elspin;18345896]Lack of windows: 90% of user base on release lost. If they want this to be used seriously, that was a major fail.[/QUOTE]
Well it's a good thing this is an initial release then, isn't it.
okay, so supposedly it has all of those features like auto garbage collection, compiles very fast, and it supposedly runs at the speed of C, but what are the negatives of the language?
No method or operator overloading, no generics.
[QUOTE=efeX;18347347]okay, so supposedly it has all of those features like auto garbage collection, compiles very fast, and it supposedly runs at the speed of C, but what are the negatives of the language?[/QUOTE]
Positive and negative sides of a language is strictly subjective and you'll have to find out for yourself. However, it never claims to run as fast as C, it claims to be [I]almost[/I] as fast as C, which is really not very well commented upon. Also, garbage collection is not purely a "positive" feature, mark and sweep garbage collection has a clear impact on real-time applications.
[QUOTE=Ortzinator;18347474]No overloading, no type inference, no generics[/QUOTE]
It has both compile-time and run-time type inference. Saying it has no generics is also wrong. It has no [I]templates[/I]. Generics can be done with interfaces and runtime reflection.
No overloading is a fairly trivial design choice.
[QUOTE=Ortzinator;18347474]no Windows compiler.[/QUOTE]
That's not really a property of the language.
It supports everything google needs it to do.
Why spend time on shit you dont care about?
[QUOTE=blankthemuffin;18320732]Suck shit windows users, time to learn what it's like when companies ignore your platform.[/QUOTE]
I totally agree with this.
[QUOTE=benjojo;18316874]And it is not cool leaving out windows developers.[/QUOTE]
It's very very cool. It's so cool i pooped my pants.
[QUOTE=Eleventeen;18329633]why no go for windows?[/QUOTE]
Cause it sucks i guess, a minority operating system is not of interest.
[QUOTE=Elspin;18345896]Lack of windows: 90% of user base on release lost. If they want this to be used seriously, that was a major fail.[/QUOTE]
Seriously where do these numbers come from?
Google doesn't make your average shit app.
They do it on the web, their servers run linux, not Windows. Why would they want to pay a guy to do something like porting go compiler to a system that is of no importance?
In the tech talk, execution speed was reported to be at about 1.1-1.2x as long as the C equivalent. (taking the speed C runs at at 1.0, before anyone mis-interprets that as "double-and-a-bit")
[QUOTE=aualin;18348898]It supports everything google needs it to do.
Why spend time on shit you dont care about?
I totally agree with this.
It's very very cool. It's so cool i pooped my pants.
Cause it sucks i guess, a minority operating system is not of interest.
Seriously where do these numbers come from?
Google doesn't make your average shit app.
They do it on the web, their servers run linux, not Windows. Why would they want to pay a guy to do something like porting go compiler to a system that is of no importance?[/QUOTE]
it was only time before this post would happen. google doesn't make a compiler for their [i]new[/i] language for windows, bashing of windows begins. they also don't even have a fully optimized x86 compiler, are we going to start bashing x86 now and say that it's not of interest?
[QUOTE=efeX;18354802]it was only time before this post would happen. google doesn't make a compiler for their [i]new[/i] language for windows, bashing of windows begins. they also don't even have a fully optimized x86 compiler, are we going to start bashing x86 now and say that it's not of interest?[/QUOTE]
Can you seriously not see that he is trolling you?
can you see i don't care
[QUOTE=aualin;18348898]Why would they want to pay a guy to do something like porting go compiler to a system that is of no importance?[/QUOTE]
Because Google is nice.
[quote]
Why doesn't Go run on Windows? We understand that a significant fraction of computers in the world run Windows and it would be great if those computers could run Go programs. However, the Go team is small and we don't have the resources to do a Windows port at the moment. We would be more than willing to answer questions and offer advice to anyone willing to develop a Windows version.[/quote]
[url]http://groups.google.com/group/golang-checkins/browse%5Fthread/thread/fdea6d681b9f692d[/url]
[QUOTE=Denzo;18358392][url]http://groups.google.com/group/golang-checkins/browse%5Fthread/thread/fdea6d681b9f692d[/url][/QUOTE]
According to #go-nuts on FreeNode, a lot of people are working on Windows ports already. Hopefully one will emerge soon.
[QUOTE=efeX;18354802]it was only time before this post would happen. google doesn't make a compiler for their [i]new[/i] language for windows, bashing of windows begins. they also don't even have a fully optimized x86 compiler, are we going to start bashing x86 now and say that it's not of interest?[/QUOTE]
Yes, x86 is of no use when you got x86_64. x86 is only of real interest if you are running on embedded platforms, or laptops/netbooks where 64 bit is too expensive.
Or we could go from the google point of view. They run thousands of cheap computers, supposedly some are old now. That's why it makes sense to support x86. But windows is just a waste of time to support, there is no win:win scenario for google there. If you want windows, port, if you want arm, port.
I applaud the decision to let anyone nuts enough to port it to windows.
[QUOTE=aualin;18380013]x86 is only of real interest if you are running on embedded platforms[/QUOTE]
Whoah, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about here.
[QUOTE=aualin;18380013]if you want arm, port.[/QUOTE]
Google is already 97% finished (source: Google TechTalks) on ARM, you can already get it. It's the 5g and 5l tools.
[QUOTE=aualin;18380013]Yes, x86 is of no use when you got x86_64. x86 is only of real interest if you are running on embedded platforms, or laptops/netbooks where 64 bit is too expensive.
Or we could go from the google point of view. They run thousands of cheap computers, supposedly some are old now. That's why it makes sense to support x86. But windows is just a waste of time to support, there is no win:win scenario for google there. If you want windows, port, if you want arm, port.
I applaud the decision to let anyone nuts enough to port it to windows.[/QUOTE]
Ahahaha funniest thing I've read all day.
[QUOTE=blankthemuffin;18380118]Ahahaha funniest thing I've read all day.[/QUOTE]
Happy to be of service :)
If you're going to bash windows/x86 at least do it right, not be the typical linux user who bashes windows cause they think they are superior for using linux.
linux uses bash all the time :P
Why would you seriously use x86?
There is no reason to use x86 except on cheap computers/emedded platforms.
And even on emedded platforms arm is preferred.
The only sane reason i can think of is good old windows, and closed source apps.
And yes if i was superior, it would be so because i was born superior. Not because i am sane and using Linux.
[QUOTE=aualin;18418445]Why would you seriously use x86?
There is no reason to use x86 except on cheap computers/emedded platforms.
And even on emedded platforms arm is preferred.
The only sane reason i can think of is good old windows, and closed source apps.
And yes if i was superior, it would be so because i was born superior. Not because i am sane and using Linux.[/QUOTE]
Every normal desktop PC/notebook/netbook uses x86.
People, it'd be nice if we could discuss Go instead.
So, anyone made anything yet?
I wanted to make an IRC library, but apparently I wasn't as original as I thought: like half of #go-nuts was working on the same thing. So I postponed that and started golua.
I stopped production to explore the idioms of Go a bit more before expanding the API, but at least it's in a working state. Hello world in golua:
[cpp]
package main
import "lua"
func main() {
L := lua.New();
L.DoString(`print("Hello, world")`);
}
[/cpp]
I also made a highlighter for gtksourceview, so if anyone is using gedit for Go:
[code]$ hg clone https://ja_cop@bitbucket.org/ja_cop/go.lang/[/code]
Put go.lang in /usr/share/gtksourceview-2.0/language-specs.
[QUOTE=Robber;18419437]Every normal desktop PC/notebook/netbook uses x86.[/QUOTE]
He's talking about 32-bit x86 as opposed to x86-64.
[QUOTE=jA_cOp;18420476]I also made a highlighter for gtksourceview, so if anyone is using gedit for Go:
[code]$ hg clone https://ja_cop@bitbucket.org/ja_cop/go.lang/[/code]
Put go.lang in /usr/share/gtksourceview-2.0/language-specs.[/QUOTE]
Awesome. :) Thanks.
[QUOTE=blankthemuffin;18346331]90% of the user base good joke.
This isn't a game, we're talking about a programming language written by people who work for a company who's primary interests include hosted applications.[/QUOTE]
Are you guys serious? I'm not trying to say Windows is more important, or that it's userbase are better programmers, or anything like that. Trying to say things like that would be stupid, biased and without factual evidence. I was just saying that a massive majority of computer users are windows users, so they dropped most of their possible userbase down the drain. Yeah, it might be easier to write things for linux and mac, but mac has a small percentage of users and most of it's userbase is based on people who want simpler computers, not programmers. Linux users, yes, are mostly programmers but once again the linux userbase is tiny...
[QUOTE=Elspin;18430020]Are you guys serious? I'm not trying to say Windows is more important, or that it's userbase are better programmers, or anything like that. Trying to say things like that would be stupid, biased and without factual evidence. I was just saying that a massive majority of computer users are windows users, so they dropped most of their possible userbase down the drain. Yeah, it might be easier to write things for linux and mac, but mac has a small percentage of users and most of it's userbase is based on people who want simpler computers, not programmers. Linux users, yes, are mostly programmers but once again the linux userbase is tiny...[/QUOTE]
With Linux support comes Mac OSX support and BSD support, Go happens to support all those three now. They're just similar systems, based on (Linux) and derived from (Mac, BSD) Unix. They all share the POSIX interface. It'd be a shame not to make the tiny changes needed to port between them.
Windows on the other hand, is neither based on nor derived from Unix, you have to completely rewrite the low-level APIs of the standard library and use a completely different linker.
At the Google TechTalk for Go, they were using Mac OSX... maybe that's their starting point. If that's so, it's only natural that Windows comes last on the official port list.
[QUOTE=benjojo;18316874]Why is Google trying to do everything that everyone else does?
Just some examples:
Web browser
Email
Programming language
IM
And it is not cool leaving out windows developers.[/QUOTE]
Jesus past Ben, That really was a dumb post.
( I would like to apologise on my 4 years older behalf )
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
