Go (language)

[richard.pieri-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w at public.gmane.org (Richard Pieri)]

On Nov 19, 2009, at 5:10 PM, Samuel Baldwin wrote:
> 
> I don't understand what you mean about Go not being modular. I can
> write a package in Go that can be used by anything else: identifiers
> will be exported if:

There is no "if" with Python.  I don't have to write packages, and I don't have to specifically code for it.  Say that I have a Python program called foo and there is a class in foo that I want to use in an other program called bar.  I don't need to (re)write foo with this in mind.  I simply "import foo" in bar and all of foo's objects are available to me.

Not saying that Go isn't good; just decrying the comparison to Python.


> I think the idea is it's more concise even for large projects; for
> simple projects something like perl may be more concise, but for
> larger programs, Go is supposed to win out. See Mr. Marx's example.

You missed the crack: the number of lines of code needed to perform a task is no measure of the language's utility.  BTW, Gordon: your Zarflax language is still to verbose; you should be able to condense your Hello World by at least 6 bits :).

--Rich P.