On Wed, 2013-11-20 at 11:45 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 8:45 AM, Alec Teal <a.t...@warwick.ac.uk> wrote: > > > > It was said before (when this first started) that Go wasn't ready. Another > > language that looks cool but has yet to mature. > > Side issue clarification. I believe that Go is ready for any use one > might care to put it to. The reasons I believe it is not suitable as > a default-enabled language for GCC have to do with licensing and > source code issues, not with the language or the compiler support for > it.
Thanks for the point. Ian, could you explain more what you mean by "source code issues". From my non-native English speaker point of view, I'm understanding "software quality" (i.e. bugs) which is not what you seems to mean. BTW, I am rather in favor of Go becoming more used and perhaps default-enabled.... (just because I like the language and I trust your work on Go in GCC; the one major thing I miss in Go is dynamic loading à la dlopen). Regards. -- Basile STARYNKEVITCH http://starynkevitch.net/Basile/ email: basile<at>starynkevitch<dot>net mobile: +33 6 8501 2359 8, rue de la Faiencerie, 92340 Bourg La Reine, France *** opinions {are only mine, sont seulement les miennes} ***
