Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 4th Sep 2012 20:04 UTC, submitted by MOS6510
General Development "Computer programming is the art, craft and science of writing programs which define how computers operate. This book will teach you how to write computer programs using a programming language designed by Google named Go." Freely available book on Go.
Thread beginning with comment 533858
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Go seems alright...
by Tuishimi on Tue 4th Sep 2012 22:08 UTC
Tuishimi
Member since:
2005-07-06

...I haven't looked at it since it was first released. It wasn't easy to use on Windows at the time.

I don't understand why Ada never took off, it had everything you find in the modern languages: tasks, low-level bit manipulation, OS assembly language interface, packages, OOP-like, even its own build dependency system. And I just like it.

Edited 2012-09-04 22:11 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Go seems alright...
by Hypnos on Wed 5th Sep 2012 01:41 in reply to "Go seems alright..."
Hypnos Member since:
2008-11-19

Maybe it has too many features, giving the impression of a closed, specialist ecosystem.

Tools with smaller scope (e.g. C) are easier to wrap your head around and place in the context of your other tools (e.g., make).

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Go seems alright...
by kwan_e on Wed 5th Sep 2012 02:43 in reply to "Go seems alright..."
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

...I haven't looked at it since it was first released. It wasn't easy to use on Windows at the time.

I don't understand why Ada never took off, it had everything you find in the modern languages: tasks, low-level bit manipulation, OS assembly language interface, packages, OOP-like, even its own build dependency system. And I just like it.


I bought the book for Ada 2005, and being the C++ fanboy I am, I seriously wish C++ adopted a whole bunch of Ada features. It seemed really strange with C++11 that there was all the hype about concepts that were ditched due to difficulty when Ada has a much more clean way to specify template requirements. Was it seriously that hard for the standards committee to look outside of C-like languages?

The only thing that still puts me off Ada is it's OO implementation. I still can't get my head around the rules of elaboration or the rules for getting the [type].[method] syntax to work.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Go seems alright...
by ricegf on Wed 5th Sep 2012 12:41 in reply to "Go seems alright..."
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

I loved Ada, but it had the stigma of being government mandated. Worse, when PC Ada compilers were first introduced, the government wouldn't let them use the name "Ada" because they weren't certified to the spec (because DOS was... well, DOS).

Kiss of death.

My favorite Ada anecdote was the government commission to determine what was needed to make Ada a commercial success. Their recommendation to congress was to EITHER (1) invest $15 million in establishing an Ada promotions board, OR (2) invest nothing, because less that $15 million would fail.

Congress, inevitably, voted $10 million.

And that, boys and girls, explains it all. :-D

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE: Go seems alright...
by renox on Wed 5th Sep 2012 14:28 in reply to "Go seems alright..."
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't understand why Ada never took off


1) At the beginning it wasn't very "object oriented" when the fashion for object-orientation was very strong

2) The tools were quite expensive. The DOD should have funded GNAT, much, much earlier.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Go seems alright...
by Tuishimi on Wed 5th Sep 2012 14:53 in reply to "RE: Go seems alright..."
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

re: cost... true. I had "free access" to an excellent compiler and even had the pleasure and privilege of working on a VMS component written in Ada. I know the first iteration of Ada was not fully OOP (oop-like) but you could fudge it. Ahhh... I think I still have my Booch book lying around somewhere. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2