On Nov 11, 8:42 pm, Carl Banks <pavlovevide...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 11, 7:56 pm, geremy condra <debat...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Mensanator <mensana...@aol.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 11, 6:53 pm, kj <no.em...@please.post> wrote: > > >> I'm just learning about Google's latest: the GO (Go?) language. > > >> (e.g.http://golang.orgorhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKnDgT73v8s). > > >> There are some distinctly Pythonoid features to the syntax, such > > >> as "import this_or_that", > > > > There's more to Python than import statements. > > > In fact, this Go language is nothing like Python. > > > Actually, numerous analogies have been drawn between the two > > both by whoever wrote the docs and the tech media, including > > slashdot and techcrunch. > > Superficially it looks quite hideous, at least this sample does, but > underneath the covers might be another question. Javascript looks > like Java but behaves more like Python. Such might also be the case > for Go. I'll reserve judgment till I've looked at it, but it's > advertised as natively supporting something I've always wanted in a > static language: signatures (and, presumably, a culture to support > them).
Ok, I've read up on the language and I've seen enough. I, for one, won't be using it. I don't think it has any possibility of gaining traction without serious changes. If Google decides to throw money at it and/or push it internally (and I am skeptical Google's software engineers would let themselved be browbeaten into using it) it'll be Lisp 2: Electric Boogaloo. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
