On 2011-01-17, Chris Rebert <c...@rebertia.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Tim Harig <user...@ilthio.net> wrote: >> On 2011-01-16, geremy condra <debat...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 3:03 AM, Tim Harig <user...@ilthio.net> wrote: ><snip> >>>> Personally, I think the time is ripe for a language that bridges the >>>> gap between ease of use dynamic languages with the performance and >>>> distribution capabilities of a full systems level language. >>> >>> 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. ><snip> >> >> 2. Go has a similar mechanism to exceptions, defer/panic/recover. It does >> downplay
there use for less exceptional conditions in favor of function return values; however, there is nothing preventing you from using them as you see fit to do so. > Downplay what exactly? Seems your paragraph got truncated. Sorry. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
