reddit discussion about Go turns to D again

[Paulo Pinto]

You are to a certain extent right, but Go is appealing in a few ways.

Many Go users are coming from C or scripting languages, so Go is an
evolution for them, even if the language is a downgrade from major
programming language features.

Then many of the developers that are impressed by Go's multicore
features, are not aware of the nice libraries available for C++, JVM or
.Net.

There is the possibility that Go will make it into Android.

The web site is always up to date with the latest language specification and
they have weekly and stable releases.

There not much to say about Go, other than the language looks like a new
version of Alef from Plan9 with a bit of Oberon. But Google's backing, plus
the way they deal with the community is increasing its use.

I wish D would evolve the same way.

--
Paulo

"Adam Ruppe" <destructionator at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:iqn484$2fkm$1 at digitalmars.com...
> Ugh, it annoys me so much that they do those long videos instead
> of some plain text!
>
> But, I watched parts of it, and I really wasn't impressed. They didn't
> use any interesting techniques - it was just a straight forward app
> using some uninteresting libraries. Even the HTTP server was incredibly
> plain; there's nothing remarkable about that code.
>
> There was one thing I'd remark on though. They talked about the
> importance of error handling in Go... but their solution was lame. We've
> talked about it before here, but blargh, Go's error handling sucks. Very
> ugly code, and looks easy to get wrong.
>
> Then they went into some appengine stuff. Again, unremarkable aside
> from the ugliness. Poo.
>
>
> After watching it, out of curiosity, I looked at Go's documentation
> for the http package. Of course, they immediately attack CGI on it's
> page. Blargh.
>
> But, one thing that is ok is your client code looks the same with
> a variety of methods. Good.
>
> What's weak is the poor offering of the library. I haven't used it,
> of course, the documentation and that video were both very
> unimpressive.
>
>
> Go's library has a wide breadth... but very little depth. Much of
> what it offers is trivial, and it doesn't go far beyond that. It's
> a very thin wrapper... and the abstractions it does offer seem to
> be leaky.
>
>
> I wouldn't use it for real work, even if the syntax wasn't so ugly.
>
>
> Looking at the Reddit thread too, I notice nobody is actually talking
> about the video. I imagine the reason why is just how utterly
> uninteresting it was.  And odds are the stupid video presentation
> means half the commentators didn't even watch it!