Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 11th Feb 2013 22:59 UTC
Permalink for comment 552189
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-18
Which you can already do in C++ and Java, etc. In C++, there's nothing to stop you declaring everything in a class public - which is what a struct is in C++.
The merits of why this is better can be debated, but just because he learnt it one way and never considered the alternative until he came across Go is a poor excuse.
Java does this already.
I quite like LLVM's IR for integers. i8, i16, i32 etc.
John McCarthy used lists, but the implementation need not be linked lists. Most LISPs these days don't claim "list only". Even with the traditional LISP list structure, you're not actually limited to linked lists. The ability to create trees with cons cells was realized early.