geremy condra <debat...@gmail.com> writes: > I agree. That does not make Go that language, and many of the choices > made during Go's development indicate that they don't think it's that > language either. I'm speaking specifically of its non-object model, > lack of exceptions, etc .... > You might be right, but I doubt we'll know one way or the other in the > next 5 years. Personally, I'm hoping that functional language use > continues to grow.
You know, the functional programming community seems to think of OOP as a 1990's thing that didn't work out. Most things that can be done with OOP, can be done with higher-order functions and bounded polymorphism like in Haskell. I'm not sure, but I don't think Erlang has exceptions in the sense we're used to. Someone mentioned Erlang uses a VM, but I think there is a native compiler called HIPE. Of course there is still a fairly substantial runtime system, but that's true of any language with a garbage collector and so forth. Scala seems like an interesting language that is maybe a bit more "practical" than Haskell. I want to try writing something in it. Yes it's JVM-bound but maybe the Java aspects can be decoupled somehow. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
