On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Russ Cox <r...@swtch.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 5:04 PM, erik quanstrom <quans...@quanstro.net> wrote:
>> On Tue Nov 10 20:02:34 EST 2009, mirtchov...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> but will it run on Plan 9?
>>
>> would the authors care to contrast go with limbo?
>
> The common concepts—channels, slices, and cheap processes—
> have their differences: channels can be typed as one direction or
> another, slices have a cap, the processes can be muxed onto
> multiple OS threads instead of limited to a single OS thread.
> The new concepts are new and shouldn't be ignored: interface types,
> the approach to constants, the package system, initialization,
> methods on almost any type, the very simple approach to name
> visibility (case-sensitive instead of public/private tags), and
> other things I am forgetting all combine to make Go feel like
> a very different language than Limbo, or for that matter Alef or
> Newsqueak. Don't fall into the trap of thinking it's just like one
> of those.
First of all -- as usual -- thanks a million for chiming in. Two question:
1. what would be the best way to quickly wrap one's head around Go?
2. Is there an alias dedicated to "Go for Plan9/Inferno/Limbo old geezers"?
I'm pretty sure such a perspective could be a little odd for most of
of the folks on go-nuts, but at the same time this is a perspective I'm
personally coming from (and it looks like I'm not alone).
Thanks,
Roman.
P.S. Its just not fair to have "Go for C++ programmers" ;-)
