IMHO the real deficiencies in C++ are what it inherited from C.

As to the name Go, my only objection is that there was already a Go! language.


--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
http://mason.gmu.edu/~smetz3

________________________________________
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] on behalf of 
Steve Smith [sasd...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2020 2:02 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Developers say Google's Go is 'most sought after' programming 
language of 2020

I actually love HLASM, PL/I, and older versions of C++.  C++ was a leader
in OO programming, but imho, it's gotten so stupefyingly complicated that
it's may not be humanly possible to write decent programs with it.  Go
sounds like a pretty good reset, but at this point, I only know what I've
read about it.

It's name however, is horrible. Goo, Goog, or even G would have obviated
much ambiguity.  As it is, they may be stuck with Golang being the common
name.

sas

On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 1:44 PM Charles Mills <charl...@mcn.org> wrote:

> +1
>
> Everyone here who likes the general idea of a C++ type of language (HLASM
> and PL/I zealots need not apply!) but dislikes some or many of the
> specifics of C++ should check out Go. (The name of the language, as I
> understand it, is Go. Unfortunately the word Go is pretty heavily
> overloaded, which tends to make people call the language by the unambiguous
> name Golang. Golang.org is the Web site.) It is a compiled language, unlike
> Python.
>
> Charles
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Reply via email to