Google's Go

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

grauzone wrote:
> Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 12:00:04PM -0500, Steve Teale wrote:
>>> I see that Go has now usurped D's former place at #13 in Tiobe - 
>>> which I realize of course does not mean anything. But I'd be 
>>> interested to hear what the D aficionados think of Go.
>>
>> There's been a couple threads about it before. My opinion: it is garbage.
>> It has maybe two or three good ideas in there, but on the whole, it is
>> a very poor showing. The arrogant developers didn't do any research into
>> prior art when designing it, and it shows - good ideas are absent without
>> even a mention. Bad ideas remain in there saying "this is the best we 
>> could
>> do".
> 
> Oh well, D isn't that great either. While it doesn't have such big names 
> attached on it (although "Andrei" is not that small of a name), it had 
> more time.
> 
> What worries one most is how D rushes "to completion", just because of 
> the deadline of that one book. It's obvious that some features are half 
> cooked at best. Just look at the features added in D 2.038 (auto ref, 
> DIP2): terrible hacks to get some broken language features barely to 
> work before the deadline is over.

Meh. It's all so subjective, calling some language design "a hack" is
nonfalsifiable. That reminds me of some of the Walter/Bartosz/me
discussions. The first person to call something a hack usually won any
argument because there was no way to counter that label sensibly.
Prepend "terrible" and we have a winner.


Andrei