Gary Willoughby: "Why Go's design is a disservice to intelligent programmers"

[via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Sunday, 29 March 2015 at 12:50:38 UTC, cym13 wrote:
> Nim seems quite interesting indeed, even if I'm not sure how 
> well it scales. It looks like a language that is prowd of a 
> heavy use of macros and DSL definition à la lisp.

Nim is also too young to know if it stays around.

> However, I can't see a pythonista being excited in Dart at all, 
> at least not for what he finds in python. More restricted in 
> any way, no clear functional orientation possible, a clear lack

Actually, there is quite a large overlap if you look beyond the 
syntax. Dart is completely unexciting, but I also find it very 
productive when used with the IDE. I don't think any language 
without comprehensions can attract Python programmers for real, 
but the recent Dart 1.9 release also have compact Pythonesque 
generators (iterators/ranges) as you can see on the link above so 
I like the direction they are taking now.

Anyway, my point was more that making Python a target means you 
have to compete with a large set of other languages in the same 
vein. In the system language area you only have C++/Rust so it is 
an easier target. Unfortunately C++ still has a lot of advantages 
over other languages for real world projects, so it will remain 
my system level language until a better language starts polishing 
their low level stuff... :-/