Go troll someone else. uriel
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 7:33 PM, frederic <fduboi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> So now closures are not an issue anymore? >> >> There is nothing wrong with closures per se, hacking them up on top of >> C is what is wrong. >> > > That's basically what you replied to me in an other thread: > "I'm pretty sure that if C featured closures, Anselm and many others > would promptly and cleverly hang themselves with them." > > I asked you why, but you didn't answer. Can you elaborate? Can you? > >>> And you don't see the OO >>> non-non-support (sic) [from the FAQ: "is Go an OO language?" "-Yes and >>> no"] >>> as a problem? Beware, if you use Go's methods you might write OO-style >>> code >>> without noticing. >> >> If you can't push your head out of your ass and beyond silly >> terminology, it is pointless to argue with you. >> > > However, you did start to argue. > > Oh, I see: cheap rhetoric. > >> Next you will tell me that because I said OO is evil, I must be >> against function pointers. > > No; you probably confuse me with the other guy who says things like: > > "I can much more strongly state that [OO and XML] are total > worthless bullshit that should *never* be used." > > That said, IIRC you often agree with this guy, hence my question. > >> Go has no inheritance, and that is >> basically the root of all OO evil (and inheritance is in mainstream >> programming considered the defining characteristic of any OO >> language.) >> > > Why do you think inheritance is the root of all evil? > > That's an important issue, given that Go offers " ways to embed types > in other types to provide something analogous—but not identical—to > subclassing" > [from "Effective Go"] > >> >>>> Having Go, there is no excuse to write user space code in C ever >>>> again; as for kernel space, we will see (specially once they deploy >>>> the new concurrent garbage collector), rob said he would like somebody >>>> to try building a kernel in Go, this would be fun, and might even >>>> produce something quite useful. >>>> >>> >>> So now C isn't the perfect programming language any more? >> >> C was never perfect, > > Oh sorry, I believed you told me C was perfect for Unix programming on IRC > the other day. I apologize, I don't know how I could possibly confuse you > with the brain-dead C fanboy I talked with a couple of month ago. > >> starting with the abomination that is the preprocessor. > > So... don't use it? > >> C always was, still is, and always will be, infinitely better than Java or >> C++. >> > > What about Perl, Python, Ruby, Basic, Befunge, Lua, PL/I, Smalltalk, C#, Io, > Ada, Scheme, > R, Self,... > > Seriously, so what? What does it mean it's better? Better at what? > >
