These two points really nail it: On Wednesday, 27 February 2019 11:02:23 UTC+1, Chris Hopkins wrote: > > > What made me stay is the clarity and simplicity. So many languages seem to > be an exercise in showing off how clever you are, by using x clever > pattern. Go doesn't seem to suffer this. >
C++ code you find in cryptocurrency server particularly demonstrate this problem. Ok, so partly, I just don't understand the generic syntax, the template, and I find its syntax absolutely repulsive (and completely unintuitive). But it's not just that, the code is cryptic and incredibly disorganised, and I guess this is where the novel build system of Go really shows its superiority - CPP syntax is also very cryptic. More than one include root... We have modules now, and right off the bat it eliminates so much of the manual handling that makes code like this so irritating to adopt and work with. > If I could just use it for the embedded stuff i do... > Go would require a separate runtime system for embedded, due to the usually tiny resources. The MIT-PDOS Biscuit research OS is an example of a modified runtime designed for launching off bare metal, this might be a direction that could do with being further developed. Embedded software tends to need very fussy, hand-written and careful handling of resources. Mainly I think for these cases one simply has to expose more of GC's controls and possibly write different resource managers (gc modes, perhasp) better suited to such environments. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
