It's replete with oddities and limitations that signal "ah, this is because systems language."
Go’s type system, for example, is very much a systems-language artifact. The designers chose structural typing because it was lighter weight, but provided enough type safety to get by. It sucks though for enterprise app development where your team (and your tooling) are desperate for nominal typing clarity and determinism.
The error handling is like a systems language for sure, I'll agree on that.
But where do Go's docs or founders call it a C replacement? gf000 asked where this is mentioned besides marketing, but I don't see it in the marketing either.
It's replete with oddities and limitations that signal "ah, this is because systems language."
Go’s type system, for example, is very much a systems-language artifact. The designers chose structural typing because it was lighter weight, but provided enough type safety to get by. It sucks though for enterprise app development where your team (and your tooling) are desperate for nominal typing clarity and determinism.
The error handling is like a systems language for sure, I'll agree on that.
But where do Go's docs or founders call it a C replacement? gf000 asked where this is mentioned besides marketing, but I don't see it in the marketing either.
Now that Go is styled as a Java competitor its framing is different. But here's an old golang.org archive for fun:
https://web.archive.org/web/20091113154831/http://golang.org...
The main page title *Go: a systems programming language*
It still sports all the low-level stuff too, pointer arithmetic and all.
6 replies →