On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 08:48:39PM +0530, Dan Cross wrote:
>
> Wonderful! Please point me to your new programming language so I can
> have a look?
>
I don't think it would do you any good, since you are apparently unable
to differentiate between programming languages and build systems.
>
> So are you saying that because they use bash to build the system, the
> language is shitty? Or just the build system is shitty?
>
I have other issues with Go as a language, but the build system is
unmitigated shit.
>
> Writing a shell script is easy. Writing a shell script to build a
> non-trivial piece of software across $n$ different platforms is hard.
>
And yet people do it all the time.
>
> To put it another way, why not cut the cord? Because it takes time
> away from doing something they consider more important.
>
Incorrect. There's a whole world of people out there; some of them
would be willing to build and maintain an elegant, portable shell
script. That's the point of having an open development process, I
thought. I understand the need for the core devs to focus on the task
at hand: language building. It is idiotic not to delegate the build
system to someone willing and able to devote the time to it.
> More generally, if your impression of Go as a language ("Typical go
> shit...") is based on what shell they chose for the build script, then
> I'm not sure you have your priorities straight.
Fortunately, your assessment of my priorities is meaningless. "Typical
Go shit" referred to the ceaseless lack of focus on quality endemic to a
schizophrenic community that was organized around a language without a
mission. Go is still evolving in two separate directions; one camp sees
it as yet another language for web shit, and one camp sees it as a real
programming language for actual programs. I long ago lost interest in
seeing who will eventually win, but in the meantime every bad decision
seems to have some chorus of supporters who take every piece of
criticism personally. *Those* are the people who need to examine their
priorities.
