From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:25:54 -0800 Message-ID: From: Roman Shaposhnik To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] Go Topicbox-Message-UUID: 98f1676c-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:00 PM, Russ Cox wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 5:04 PM, erik quanstrom w= rote: >> On Tue Nov 10 20:02:34 EST 2009, mirtchovski@gmail.com wrote: >>> but will it run on Plan 9? >> >> would the authors care to contrast go with limbo? > > The common concepts=97channels, slices, and cheap processes=97 > have their differences: channels can be typed as one direction or > another, slices have a cap, the processes can be muxed onto > multiple OS threads instead of limited to a single OS thread. > The new concepts are new and shouldn't be ignored: interface types, > the approach to constants, the package system, initialization, > methods on almost any type, the very simple approach to name > visibility (case-sensitive instead of public/private tags), and > other things I am forgetting all combine to make Go feel like > a very different language than Limbo, or for that matter Alef or > Newsqueak. =A0Don't fall into the trap of thinking it's just like one > of those. First of all -- as usual -- thanks a million for chiming in. Two question: 1. what would be the best way to quickly wrap one's head around Go? 2. Is there an alias dedicated to "Go for Plan9/Inferno/Limbo old geeze= rs"? I'm pretty sure such a perspective could be a little odd for most o= f of the folks on go-nuts, but at the same time this is a perspective= I'm personally coming from (and it looks like I'm not alone). Thanks, Roman. P.S. Its just not fair to have "Go for C++ programmers" ;-)