Google has a new programming language

GypsyJoker · 2009-11-11 04:11:01

zowki · 2009-11-11 07:56:11

Yuck, it looks a lot like Java which I hate with passion. Object orientated languages such as C++ and Java are filled with unnecessary complications. I think I'll stick with good old C. Are you sure golang is by google? I didnt notice any google branding on the site.

mikesd · 2009-11-11 08:34:35

zowki wrote:

Are you sure golang is by google? I didnt notice any google branding on the site.

Yep. See here for info.

Looks like there is already a PKGBUILD for it in the AUR.

Last edited by mikesd (2009-11-11 08:36:27)

Tyriel · 2009-11-11 10:13:19

zowki wrote:

Yuck, it looks a lot like Java which I hate with passion. Object orientated languages such as C++ and Java are filled with unnecessary complications. I think I'll stick with good old C. Are you sure golang is by google? I didnt notice any google branding on the site.

*Puts face in palm* General stereotypes like this that are untrue annoy me on these forums. Maybe I am being harsh but I do expect more from an Arch user. Just because you do not use or perhaps understand the benefits of object oriented programming languages does not mean procedural ones are better.

Appologies for going off topic, getting back on now. Go does look interesting but I don't think I will try it until/if it is tried, tested and adopted in industry. That and I still need to improve my python skills

keenerd · 2009-11-11 11:38:43

This is pretty neat. It looks nothing like Java, and if anything looks too much like C :-)

For those who don't want to read the entire site, it is C with a lot of simple batteries included. A sane UTF8 string library, sane IO, GC, concurrency. Simpler arg passing for strings and arrays. Much simpler to return multiple values. A few bits of sugar such as slice notation, the "iota" accumulator, and "defer".

Pointers are still there. Very few OO features. The concurrent channels are not really pure OO message passing. I am not quite sure how to place the Goto statement. It is supposed to safely limit the scope, making it one of the more sane implementations. But the scope rules aren't yet working, so it runs on good intentions. The concurrency is very coarse grained and extremely manual. I get the impression their threading model is lighter than forking, but heavily inspired by the use cases of forking.

There does not seem to be any simpler means of passing functions into functions, without dropping to C style pointers.

The language is not OO, it is not FP. It is very much imperative C, with most of the inconveniences smoothed over.

edit: Heh. http://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=9

Last edited by keenerd (2009-11-11 11:51:30)

Octoploid · 2009-11-11 12:11:13

I've read half through the GoCourse pdfs and must say it's a very nice language.
What's hugely disappointing is the lack of generics. Without generics Go will
become a nice niche language without the muscle to seriously challenge C++.

deej · 2009-11-11 12:23:11

keenerd wrote:

T
edit: Heh. http://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=9

I thought the name was familiar... this will be interesting !

Deej

Minishark · 2009-11-11 14:01:05

I'm always highly skeptical when a new language comes out, especially when it claims to have the best of all programming worlds. Since this one is backed by Google, it's more likely to succeed than your average language. However, until I see third-party developers embracing it to build awesome things, I'm not going to be able to see it as anything more than an interesting experiment in language design.

pichulines · 2009-11-11 17:03:23

is it necessary to create a new programming language, a new web browser, a new operatiing system...? or just is it a way of control?

Minishark · 2009-11-11 17:29:42

pichulines wrote:

is it necessary to create a new programming language, a new web browser, a new operatiing system...? or just is it a way of control?

Whether or not they're necessary is up for debate.
However, I can assure that Google isn't doing it simply out of the goodness of their heart. If they didn't think all these things would be good for their business, they wouldn't have done them.

madalu · 2009-11-11 18:49:34

Minishark wrote:

pichulines wrote:
is it necessary to create a new programming language, a new web browser, a new operatiing system...? or just is it a way of control?
Whether or not they're necessary is up for debate.
However, I can assure that Google isn't doing it simply out of the goodness of their heart. If they didn't think all these things would be good for their business, they wouldn't have done them.

Plus Google can take for granted the fact that 1000s of drooling techies will gobble up whatever fresh or not so fresh meat they toss out.

Google does seem intent on reinventing the wheel these days. Everything, it seems, has to be in house and Google branded. Wave is email "reinvented." Chrome OS is the OS "reinvented." And so on.

tomd123 · 2009-11-11 19:01:43

One thing I heard that GO doesn't have, is a large standard library. I think that this is a major downer for this language. For instance, I can't imagine python as being such a useful language without its "batteries included" library.

Xyne · 2009-11-11 19:13:27

The lack of necessity often prevents progress because it allows people to settle for "good enough", so it is never an argument against creating something new. I have no opinion of Go at this point so I can't comment on what improvements it brings, if any, but it bring some innovation that might spill over to other languages. It's the same thing with Chrome. A new browser wasn't necessary, but they did some things differently and now other browser developers are looking at it and getting ideas.

As for control etc, I agree with the previous sentiment of suspicion. I avoid everything Google as much as possible and I realize that as a corporation, nearly everything they do is aimed strictly at improving their market position and ultimately making money which is their bottom line. Having written that, I also believe that there are some genuinely well-meaning people at Google who create some interesting things purely for the benefit of others or even just for the sake of it.

It would be interesting to see some benchmarks. I would imagine that opening a port and sending all the variables back to Google will cause a performance hit. Garbage collection indeed.

*edit*

tomd123 wrote:

One thing I heard that GO doesn't have, is a large standard library. I think that this is a major downer for this language. For instance, I can't imagine python as being such a useful language without its "batteries included" library.

It's brand-new. If Google starts to market it, the standard library will grow in no time. Not only will there be widespread interest in it and thus a wave of community projects, but Google can throw money at it like a drunken millionaire at a strip club.

Last edited by Xyne (2009-11-11 19:18:10)

GGLucas · 2009-11-11 19:59:01

.

Last edited by GGLucas (2022-06-24 08:04:15)

llcawthorne · 2009-11-11 22:36:36

If it already resembles C, then perhaps that will make it easy on whoever decides to fork DWM and port it into this new language.

litemotiv · 2009-11-11 22:52:24

the people behind Go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Pike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Thomps … grammer%29

Xyne · 2009-11-11 23:21:33

litemotiv wrote:

the people behind Go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Pike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Thomps … grammer%29

Ken has a proper beard. This should put many doubts to rest.

rusty99 · 2009-11-12 05:42:50

llcawthorne wrote:

If it already resembles C, then perhaps that will make it easy on whoever decides to fork DWM and port it into this new language.

changeset:   1:411a7038c17a
tag:         tip
user:        Anselm R Garbe <garbeam@gmail.com>
date:        Wed Nov 11 19:29:44 2009 +0000
files:       README
description:
added some README


diff -r 7c8525d1b98c -r 411a7038c17a README
--- /dev/null   Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000
+++ b/README    Wed Nov 11 19:29:44 2009 +0000
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
+To build, perform the following commands (make sure your Go env is setup correctly):
+
+       make -f xlib.mk
+       make
+       make dwm
+

dlin · 2009-11-24 02:10:28

Anyone have prepared the PKGBUILD for golang?

I just want to take a play.

Ranguvar · 2009-11-24 03:32:19

Woah. Ken Thompson worked on this!?
(For the uninitiated, he is the K in K&R, as in helped write The C Programming Language and also helped create the C language, and, he helped write Unix)

My interest raised by 100%.

tom5760 · 2009-11-24 04:43:29

Ranguvar wrote:

Woah. Ken Thompson worked on this!?
(For the uninitiated, he is the K in K&R, as in helped write The C Programming Language and also helped create the C language

Quick correction, the K in K&R is for Brian Kernighan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Kernighan). Ken Thomson did work on Unix and Plan9. Both very interesting and important people.

Anikom15 · 2009-11-24 23:19:14

It looks like C, but smells of Java. A wolf in sheep's clothing. Not trying to put Java down, but that's what I notice.

I reckon this'll be like C# in terms of popularity.

Ranguvar · 2009-11-25 00:14:36

tom5760 wrote:

Ranguvar wrote:
Woah. Ken Thompson worked on this!?
(For the uninitiated, he is the K in K&R, as in helped write The C Programming Language and also helped create the C language
Quick correction, the K in K&R is for Brian Kernighan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Kernighan). Ken Thomson did work on Unix and Plan9. Both very interesting and important people.

Epic failure on my part
The shame x.x

However, Thompson did work on the B programming language, which C was inspired by and is similar to in quite a few ways

@Anikom:
As in, quite popular and successful, except where multi-platform and open source is concerned?
I think rather the opposite. Go isn't tied to a set of Google APIs like C# is to .NET.

Last edited by Ranguvar (2009-11-25 00:16:10)

spupy · 2009-11-29 18:58:29

It looks like the a side project. Google employees work 20% (?) of their time on their own ideas. Some projects get released if they are worth it. I don't see this a part of google's plan for world domination.

fsckd · 2009-11-30 01:15:37

spupy, it's continuing the legacy of some projects from Plan 9.

Arch Linux

#1 2009-11-11 04:11:01

Google has a new programming language

#2 2009-11-11 07:56:11

Re: Google has a new programming language

#3 2009-11-11 08:34:35

Re: Google has a new programming language

#4 2009-11-11 10:13:19

Re: Google has a new programming language

#5 2009-11-11 11:38:43

Re: Google has a new programming language

#6 2009-11-11 12:11:13

Re: Google has a new programming language

#7 2009-11-11 12:23:11

Re: Google has a new programming language

#8 2009-11-11 14:01:05

Re: Google has a new programming language

#9 2009-11-11 17:03:23

Re: Google has a new programming language

#10 2009-11-11 17:29:42

Re: Google has a new programming language

#11 2009-11-11 18:49:34

Re: Google has a new programming language

#12 2009-11-11 19:01:43

Re: Google has a new programming language

#13 2009-11-11 19:13:27

Re: Google has a new programming language

#14 2009-11-11 19:59:01

Re: Google has a new programming language

#15 2009-11-11 22:36:36

Re: Google has a new programming language

#16 2009-11-11 22:52:24

Re: Google has a new programming language

#17 2009-11-11 23:21:33

Re: Google has a new programming language

#18 2009-11-12 05:42:50

Re: Google has a new programming language

#19 2009-11-24 02:10:28

Re: Google has a new programming language

#20 2009-11-24 03:32:19

Re: Google has a new programming language

#21 2009-11-24 04:43:29

Re: Google has a new programming language

#22 2009-11-24 23:19:14

Re: Google has a new programming language

#23 2009-11-25 00:14:36

Re: Google has a new programming language

#24 2009-11-29 18:58:29

Re: Google has a new programming language

#25 2009-11-30 01:15:37

Re: Google has a new programming language

Board footer