lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Elucidate me. What were Go's designers aiming for? A worser Erlang?

My point is that all the stuff they're going for is great and all, but
there's absolutely nothing unique about what they're trying to
accomplish as far as I can tell, and there are already options out
there to do what it does. The language semantics are pretty
uninteresting and lackluster compared to mutable types in Rust,
abstract data types in Haskell, process-oriented shared nothing actors
of Erlang, etc. It's just a prettier java maybe.

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Roberto Ierusalimschy
<> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Hisham <> wrote:
>> > was born there", implying that it wouldn't be successful if not for
>> > Google's name). Or did I miss a pun?
>> I think Roberto got it exactly; Go's designers knew exactly what spot
>> they were aiming for, and achieved.
> Actually I meant exactly the pun that Hisham explained (and then said
> he did miss it). I do not think Go hit any sweet spot at all, unless
> what they were aiming was to be cool because it came from Google. I know
> (and respect) the names of its creators, but I cannot see anything in
> that language, from a technical point of view, to make it worth being so
> popular ("so popular" meaning whatever popularity it got).
> -- Roberto