10 Nov, 2009, Lobotomy wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
I just came across a news story regarding Google's release of a new programming language called "Go". I'm having a look at the site now to see if it might be worth learning to use in creating a MUD server, among other things. What I'm curious about is if anyone else out there knows more about the language and/or can provide additional information regarding it (thoughts, opinions, etc).
11 Nov, 2009, Runter wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
I'm pretty skeptical of it to be honest. The stated goal of the language is to provide something like Javascript and Python combined with C. From what I've gathered from it it's actually pretty similar to C. But I'm going to have a hard time comparing this language to C—I'm going to compare to C++ (which they seem to discount as something widely used for systems programming (as opposed to C?)— Putting that all aside, it seems to do some stuff that's interesting albeit probably done better in other languages.

Also, I'm left scratching my head on why they'd start a project in 2008 for a technological platitude. I don't want to nail it too hard. I just think there's a lot of reasons for writing languages and this one looks like truly a case of reinventing the wheel. In any event, I'd shy away from a language this new. It looks pretty simple so it very well may be functional—But keep in mind that a lot of the "new" languages that have been around since the mid 90's are just now really blooming.
11 Nov, 2009, Davion wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
Reminds of the D Programming Language :P. Can't wait to see where this goes though.
11 Nov, 2009, Dean wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
Google seems to have got a hard-on for reinventing the wheel of late. First Google Wave, now Go. :blues:
11 Nov, 2009, Lobotomy wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
Dean said:
Google seems to have got a hard-on for reinventing the wheel of late. First Google Wave, now Go. :blues:

Are you saying that's a bad thing?
11 Nov, 2009, Runter wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
Kinda reminds me of micro$oft's C-sharp.
11 Nov, 2009, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
It would make sense for Google to develop a language native to Google Chrome, or release "Google Technology"
used with G-Maps, or G-Earth. But to come up with a multi-purpose language on it's own that's kind of like (blank) seems odd.
Are they just trying to make a Google everything?
11 Nov, 2009, Davion wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
staryavsky said:
It would make sense for Google to develop a language native to Google Chrome, or release "Google Technology"
used with G-Maps, or G-Earth. But to come up with a multi-purpose language on it's own that's kind of like (blank) seems odd.
Are they just trying to make a Google everything?


Why's that? Aren't major companies often backings behind languages? IIRC, Bell created C, and Sun created Java.
11 Nov, 2009, JohnnyStarr wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
Davion said:
Why's that? Aren't major companies often backings behind languages? IIRC, Bell created C, and Sun created Java.

Great point. I just meant that it would make more sense if they released a language that was strictly
for google applications, thats all. And it very well may be for that purpose. If not though, it seems a
bit off the wall for google right now.
11 Nov, 2009, Davion wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
It's got some good stuff. So far I'm likin' defer() and the autotyping of assigned variables :P.
11 Nov, 2009, Dean wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
Lobotomy said:
Dean said:
Google seems to have got a hard-on for reinventing the wheel of late. First Google Wave, now Go. :blues:

Are you saying that's a bad thing?


Yes. I believe I am saying it's a bad thing. I'm not at really interested in Google Wave at the moment because current methods of communication work well as is and have worked well for a very long time. As for Go, I feel like there's already plenty of fish in the sea so to speak, if it's solely for google applications, then it's a moot point though. In the event it's more general purpose then I guess if it does things better than others, then maybe I'll stop putting forward a negative position in regards to it. :alien:
11 Nov, 2009, Runter wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
Davion said:
staryavsky said:
It would make sense for Google to develop a language native to Google Chrome, or release "Google Technology"
used with G-Maps, or G-Earth. But to come up with a multi-purpose language on it's own that's kind of like (blank) seems odd.
Are they just trying to make a Google everything?


Why's that? Aren't major companies often backings behind languages? IIRC, Bell created C, and Sun created Java.


I disagree here. Bell and Sun created those language out of general necessity. By the logic you're saying this language will have the success of C or Java. I guess empirically time will tell my but magic 8 ball's sources so 'no.'
11 Nov, 2009, Lobotomy wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
I've come across another article regarding Go which seems to explain some more about the 'why' of it, among other things. Particularly the following bit:

Quote
Why create a new programming language from scratch? According to Pike, the developers behind the Go project felt that there was a need for a fresh start. It wasn't enough to just add features to existing programming languages, because sometimes you can get more in the long run by taking things away. They wanted to start from scratch and rethink everything. I'm all for a clean break, but the C-like syntax seems to run counter to that goal. He explained that Go is more radical than it looks, especially when you start to look closely at the power of its unusual type system. Pike and his colleagues didn't want to deviate too much from what developers already knew because they wanted to avoid alienating Go's target audience.
11 Nov, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
It seems like an interesting language, but that doesn't mean you should drop everything you're doing and jump on it. Is it worth learning to write a MUD server? Eh. It's not like it will make life magically easier than other high-level languages. Gain a little, lose a little. They had rather specific requirements in mind, and it's worth thinking if those requirements are the same as a MUD server. (I don't think a MUD server has as very high priorities extremely fast compilation and runtime execution.)

There are some interesting features compared to other languages:
- types are closer to the mathematical sense of an interface; two things have the same type if they have the same interface; A is a subtype of B if it implements at least B's interface. This is kind of like duck-typing on steroids, with the steroids being that you still get (a form of) static type checking.

- Automatic type declaration. Even C++ is adding this, but it is exceedingly nice to write just: make a an appropriate variable to store 'foo'. You know the type of foo, so just make a that type. In Go, it seems that you write this as: a := <whatever>. The examples only show this for initialization.

The second point is not new by any means, but off the top of my head I can't think of many languages that do the former. Scala has something kind of similar with type inference.

Should you run off and use this in non-experimental projects? Most likely you should not. Even their FAQ says that it's still an experiment and that several questions are open.

The guy in the article Lobotomy quoted said:
I'm all for a clean break, but the C-like syntax seems to run counter to that goal.

Meh. Anybody who sees syntax and goes "zomg it's just C" is kind of… well, is acting just a little bit short-sighted and literal-minded.
11 Nov, 2009, Tyche wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
Reminds me very much of Limbo.
I toyed with this several years ago.
See: http://www.vitanuova.com/inferno/papers/...
11 Nov, 2009, Sandi wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
Lobo was likely quoting Capt. James Pike.
11 Nov, 2009, Lobotomy wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
Sandi said:
Lobo was likely quoting Capt. James Pike.

1) I have no idea who that is.
2) I was quoting the article linked in my post.
11 Nov, 2009, Erok wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
staryavsky said:
It would make sense for Google to develop a language native to Google Chrome, or release "Google Technology" used with G-Maps, or G-Earth. But to come up with a multi-purpose language on it's own that's kind of like (blank) seems odd. Are they just trying to make a Google everything?

My guess is that, since this is targeted at systems programming, it came out of the same group that designed their proprietary switches and servers for their data centers (which are cheaper to build and more energy efficient that what they found on the market - but also special purpose with limited features) and they're just taking it public.
11 Nov, 2009, Koron wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
I tend not to be the early-adopter type. I like to let other people find and report bugs before I find and become immensely frustrated by them.

staryavsky said:
Are they just trying to make a Google everything?

Yes.
11 Nov, 2009, Barm wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
Timely post, I was just watching the video.

I hope it catches on. C++ is like a stepping stone covered in glue – we've been stuck there for way too long as dynamic languages lap it in features, productivity, and especially not-being-a-churning-rat-nest-ness. A few days ago, I was reading a guy's blog post about the state of the D programming language and it left me wondering if it was even possible to launch a new language today without an open-source reference compiler that allows adopters to port and play (something D stumbles on). I'm not talking about the next Visual Fred targeting wall gardens, but a real, cross-platform language that is embraced by the collaboration age.

Google gets this and open-sourcing the compiler is a savvy move.
0.0/24