what do tclers think about google go?
in [TCL]
|
Prev: RFD: comp.lang.tcl.announce moderated (remove) LAST CALL FOR COMMENTS
Next: How to control child windows move with parent window?
From: gavino on 22 Feb 2010 22:32 On Jan 5, 4:25 pm, Shin <t...(a)tcltalk.ath.cx> wrote: > Am Fri, 01 Jan 2010 12:36:46 -0800 schrieb gavino: > > >http://golang.org/doc/go_lang_faq.html > > Hm... Going back to Edit, Compile Link and Go? No, please! Does Go allow > to modify it's code interactvely, while it's running? Baaahhh... > > 2¢ lol 99% of stuff going on is simple yet people have oceans of code to do simple thing
From: gavino on 22 Feb 2010 22:34 On Jan 5, 11:38 am, Thomas MENEZ <menez.tho...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 1 jan, 21:36, gavino <gavcom...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >http://golang.org/doc/go_lang_faq.html > > 1. I gave up makefiles and all the fuss some time ago. > > I don't like compilations and all the troubles they bring. > Compilation always end up in wasting time as apps grow. > > 2. To conceive a universal language that combines the advantages of > other languages is somewhat a lure. > > You can have best of those worlds but who prefers the fake to the > original ? > What's wrong with combining several languages and use the > appropriate one wherever needed ? Tcl/C satisfies my needs. > > 3. I don't like the steps google.com is taking regarding privacy, > etc... > > 4. Who said it'll remain 'free' ? google wants to make money. > > 5. Statically typed efficient and safe ? In specific apps yes, > generally overkill... > > ... I think forth is a compile as you go language too.
From: tomk on 23 Feb 2010 16:08
On Jan 5, 12:38 pm, Thomas MENEZ <menez.tho...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 1. I gave up makefiles and all the fuss some time ago. > > I don't like compilations and all the troubles they bring. > Compilation always end up in wasting time as apps grow. I agree but it is possible to create a truly incremental compiler if you have an OS that can support the concept. In the mid 1960's a friend that did Fortran programming under Multix (http:// www.softpanorama.org/History/multix.shtml) which what the inspiration for Unix. He told me that the debugger (like most symbolic debuggers) would show you the code where the halt occurred and allowed you to modify the code. When the code was saved, only the offending subroutine was recompiled. The OS preseved the state of the program when ever a subroution was entered so when the bug fix was completed and saved the OS just rolled back the state of the program to the beginning the newly compiled subroutine and continued execution. My belief is that programming languages are currently handcuffed by OS design and that they won't significantly improve to OS designs are improve. Unfortunately it will probably take several lifetimes to fund and displace the existing intrenched OS's. tomk |