Linked by MOS6510 on Thu 10th Jan 2013 23:25 UTC
General Development "For years I've tried my damnedest to get away from C. Too simple, too many details to manage, too old and crufty, too low level. I've had intense and torrid love affairs with Java, C++, and Erlang. I've built things I'm proud of with all of them, and yet each has broken my heart. They've made promises they couldn't keep, created cultures that focus on the wrong things, and made devastating tradeoffs that eventually make you suffer painfully. And I keep crawling back to C."
Permalink for comment 548541
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: C -> Go
by voidlogic on Sat 12th Jan 2013 23:51 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: C -> Go"
Member since:

Even though it didn't appear so initially I think we agree more than we disagree. Perhaps with different emphasis, but:

"Your link is only considering execution time
That is how you measure language performance. Memory usage and code size are other metrics. "

I disagree with you here. Performance is multidimensional and those three factors are the primary factors.

Look at something like car performance, it is a combination attributes like maximum speed, acceleration, breaking, handling etc. Again, multidimensional.

Also, you are correct, the Go tip/1.1 garbage collector is much better.

"Again, I mean modern C as in C the general purpose language of the 1970/80s, not C is the systems programing language of today.
Well if you had framed it as such then I would have had no problem with your claim, although I would still find it odd to compare Go with C's much more widespread usage in the 70/80's as opposed to the areas it mainly occupies today. "

"We did not want to be writing in C++ forever" -Rob Pike
This goes back to the Bell labs guys feeling that C++ took C in the wrong direction. Go is Ken, Rob and Robert's attempt at C like language that they feel improves on C as a general purpose language, going a different direction than C++ took (a path mostly followed by Java/C++).

Reply Parent Score: 2