[Fwd: Re: [go-nuts] Re: Generics false dichotomy]

[Nick Sabalausky]

> ------- Forwarded Message --------
>> From: Aram Hăvărneanu <aram.h at mgk.ro>
>> To: Jonathan Amsterdam <jbamsterdam at gmail.com>
>> Cc: golang-nuts <golang-nuts at googlegroups.com>, Michael Jones
>> <mtj at google.com>, Jonathan Barnard <jonathan.t.barnard at gmail.com>
>> Subject: Re: [go-nuts] Re: Generics false dichotomy
>> Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2014 11:03:38 +0100
>>
>> D pays a huge penalty in compilation speed for generics. D generics
>> are turing complete, making compilation time potentially unbounded.
>> Dmd might build their standard library quickly, but this says nothing
>> about the fundamental issue.
>>
>> Potentially unbounded compilation times are unacceptable for Go.
>>

Go pays a huge penalty in execution speed. Go is turing complete, making 
runtime potentially unbounded. The programs written in Go that have 
actually been created might execute quickly, but this says nothing about 
the fundamental issue.

Potentially unbounded execution times are unacceptable for D.

But Go's fundamental problems don't even stop there. In order to build 
even just the Go compiler itself, a series of shell scripts are provided 
<http://code.google.com/p/go/source/browse/src>. Batch and bash are both 
turing complete, therefore Go's very own buildscripts have potentially 
unbounded compilation times. In reality, they won't actually execute 
forever unless someone screws up and does something stupid, but reality, 
of course, is unimportant. What's *really* important here are highly 
unlikely scenarios that have yet to ever actually surface and can't be 
handled without resorting to such inexcusably difficult and drastic 
measures as pressing Ctrl and C simultaneously.

Go-nuts really is nuts, apparently.