A problem with generators

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 03/17/2010 05:03 PM, bearophile wrote:
> Adam D. Ruppe:
>> It says exactly what it does, and enables something you couldn't do
>> before.
>
> Even assembly says what it does, but here I want more sugar :-) It
> helps.
>
>
>> How is that a hack?
>
> It shows too much the machinery, this can lead to bugs, requires more
> code, requires more memory to remember it, you need more time to read
> it and see if/where it's wrong.
>
>
>> The Go language sucks.
>
> In future it can suck less :-) And even a bad product or ignorant
> person can give useful suggestions. The authors of Go are not
> ignorant people: Robert Griesemer, Rob Pike and Ken Thompson. I am
> not even worth brushing their sandals :-)

Me neither, but we should judge Go on its own merit.

> They are giving a lesson in
> almost the limits of minimalism in a modern language.

I honestly don't believe that's the case. If you're looking for such 
lessons, there are plenty of much better examples of minimalistic 
languages. Go is simply an unfinished language; it doesn't have the kind 
of features that make a minimalistic language be also comprehensive. 
There are problems for which Go does not have an answer yet and that's 
simply because an answer hasn't been thought of yet. From what I see so 
far, it's unlikely revolutionary solutions are right down the corner. Go 
is a rehash of old ideas - but fortunately fixes the typo in O_CREAT.


Andrei