Could we change the subject for responses to this strand of the debate?
Alec
On 20/11/13 20:27, Basile Starynkevitch wrote:
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.
