Google releases new programing language.

Looks interesting, in the sed->awk->Perl tradition perhaps.

But "goroutines"? Somebody should be flogged...

Looks a lot like Python, but with a compiler instead of an interpreter. *shrug*

To me, it looks a lot more like C/Java than it looks like Python:

• whitespace isn't significant * curly-braces as block delimiters * semicolons to separate statements

When it comes to semantics rather than looks, it still doesn't seem all that similar to Python. In general, the object/type system doesn't seem to be comparable (Go has no inheritence).

Go also has no exceptions or any practical error-handling facilities.

All in all, I was pretty underwheled.

gotines? gootines? They got into trouble as soon as they named it "go"

Bob

This is comp.arch.embedded - where's the compilers for non-x86 targets? I suppose that gccgo could be re-targeted, if the run-time library is not too difficult to port.

From a very quick glance, it looks like some good points:

Source in utf-8 with utf-8 support throughout (not a big deal for embedded systems, but great for "big" systems);

Proper modules and namespaces;

Useful standard libraries;

Inferred strong typing;

Mandatory braces in for, if and switch statements;

Proper arrays that are distinct from pointers;

Maps (like Python dicts or Perl hashes);

Support for processes and communication;

Explicitly sized integers;

and some bad points:

Separate compiler and linker steps (you'd think they would have learned from the "success" of gcc's link-time optimisation project);

Much of the ugliness from C, with a good dose of its own (though less than C++ templates);

Currently limited to x86 and amd64.

A quite decent review by MarkCC over at Good Math, Bad Math

Mark qualifies as One Smart Cookie and he has had some time to play with the language since he works at Google. Short version: ... nah, read the original; it's not too long and has useful insights.

The best, though, was from commentator James H G Redekop: "I get this feeling they picked the name so that when they put out the next version of the language, they can call it Go2 and make Dijkstra jokes."

One big difference between Python and Go that I forgto to mention is that go is statically typed while Python is dynamically typed. That's a pretty fundamental difference.

I use Python every day, and I really don't see where the comparison to Python comes from. To me it looks more like cleaned up Java or C with garbage collection.

Can't it print simple words ? Lazzo may be interested....

geoff

Interesting, but missing was a For each, which is a rather glaring omission on something that hopes to improve what is already out there ?

No examples, and no EXE sizes listed ( it does create standalone EXEs, right ? )

I also liked Microsoft's ASMl language... on the topic of research-lab- languages...

-jg

Well they specifically mention that an incomplete port to ARM exists so I guess it is not too far away.

Looking at the examples in the link above, I see range might do this

for c :=3D range self.chars {...

- but their keyword list omitted mention of this under for..

Seems a confusing use of =3D and :=3D ? Are there rules to that, or does either work ?

-jg

There are rules. := is short-hand for variable declaration, typing *and* initial assignment. = is just assignment. If you're keen on syntactic sugar, it seems like a fairly well-thought-out way to avoid quite a lot of boilerplate.

Don't forget the multiple result mechanism: I think that might go quite a way towards making up for the lack of exceptions. Not a fan of exceptions myself. The multiple returns means that one donesn't have to pass results back through a reference argument just to get the error code (common C idiom), or designate a range of result values as "errors".

Great, there seems to be world wide shortage of Computer Programming Languages.

But kinda just looks like Microsoft + Borland + C + Pascal + Perl

Andrew Reilly schrieb:

This "multiple return" reminds me of LUA, it's a very handy feature

-- Dirk

:)

Yes, which could make it a good teaching tool ?

Anyone tried the IDE ? (it does have one, right?)

-jg

and*

ctic

Ah, yes, that's nifty...

Yes, noticed that - a nice idea.

-jg

It's a *programming language*. Why would a programming language have an IDE?

Perhaps what you are trying to ask is whether there are syntax highlighting setups available for commonly used IDEs such as Eclipse, KDevelope, (x)emacs, etc.

And maybe you are also asking about the state of the debugger - does it have one, is it based on gdb, or does it "speak" gdb and can thus be used with existing gdb front-ends?

I don't know the answer to either of these, but it helps to ask the right questions.

Great!

We really needed another one.

Does anyone remember "The Last One", new programming language that was going to be the absolute ultimate. It was back in the DOS days, and came in a box with god knows how many diskettes. I didn't actually buy it, the reviews were pretty scathing, as they should have been. IIRC, it was written in GW Basic :-)