Python & Go

[Paul Rubin]

kj <no.email at please.post> writes:
> One more thing: I found Rob Pike's mutterings on generics (towards
> the end of his rollout video) rather offputting, because he gave
> the impression that some important aspects of the language were
> not even considered before major decisions for it were set in stone.
> It looks like, if they ever get around to supporting generics, it
> will be a late-in-the-day hack.

Mark Chu-Carroll has a new post about Go:

  http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2009/11/the_go_i_forgot_concurrency_an.php

Someone named Mightybyte also has a post about Go, and its comment
thread is similarly pretty good:

   http://softwaresimply.blogspot.com/2009/11/standardizing-go.html

One of the commenters wrote something that I felt was similar to my
own impression of the language:

    From a PLT perspective Go isn't that interesting. The concurrency and
    "goroutines" look promising for possibly being able to do what Erlang
    does. The type system is pretty weak.  From a practical perspective
    people are singing praise for how fast it compiles, but not much
    mention so far of how fast the resulting code is. Compare tinycc vs
    gcc for speed of compilation vs resulting code performace to see why
    I'm skeptical.