From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:13:50 -0500 To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: <316a7930366a66f13994b13161e339aa@ladd.quanstro.net> In-Reply-To: <<9ab217670911120859u25b8f6f0m57cad5c126d75d65@mail.gmail.com>> References: <<9ab217670911120859u25b8f6f0m57cad5c126d75d65@mail.gmail.com>> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] Go Topicbox-Message-UUID: 9a05fe74-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > Because it is constantly compared with C, C++, Java, and scripting > languages. Its packages are sold as better than C header files, which > is demonstrated in Russ' compile time video. It is a compiled language. > Its syntax is not horribly divergent from C. none of this line of reasoning bears on go's designer's intentions. and i would be surprised (shocked actually) if a vm were omitted for language positioning reasons, rather than technical ones. > It has support for pointers, so I guess so. I'd guess it's somewhat > easier than C++, where you have to have an implementation for new > before you can do much of anything else very C++-like. That said, > it does have a language runtime like C++, so I suspect it does need > some setup before some features (such as threads) can be used. support for pointers isn't a requirement (cf: oberon). also there are many things that a language can subtily make writing a kernel in that language very difficult or impossible. given that go has a runtime, it's reasonable to ask if the runtime can be prevented from bothering interrupt routines and other critical sections. (was this a problem with alef?) - erik