• Google's Go language

    From Nightfox@DIGDIST/BATTLEST/FREEWAY to All on Sat Nov 28 11:54:00 2009
    So, has anyone played around with Google's Go language yet? I just read about it recently:
    http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/10/google-go-language

    I haven't messed with it myself..

    Nightfox

    ---
    Synchronet Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Rassilon@DIGDIST/BATTLEST/FREEWAY to Nightfox on Sat Mar 27 23:24:00 2010
    Re: Google's Go language
    By: Nightfox to All on Sat Nov 28 2009 12:54 pm

    So, has anyone played around with Google's Go language yet? I just read abo it recently:
    http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/11/10/google-go-language

    I haven't messed with it myself..

    What's it supposed to be used for?

    -Rassilon...

    ---
    Synchronet *[The Citadel BBS]* - citadel.synchro.net (PORT 4000) - Sci-Fi / Fantasy / Role
  • From Nightfox@DIGDIST/BATTLEST/FREEWAY to Rassilon on Sat Mar 27 21:52:00 2010
    Re: Google's Go language
    By: Rassilon to Nightfox on Sat Mar 27 2010 23:24:00

    What's it supposed to be used for?

    It sounded like it was intended to be a general-purpose programming language. I think Google is just trying to make an improved language.

    Nightfox

    ---
    Synchronet Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Rassilon@DIGDIST/BATTLEST/FREEWAY to Nightfox on Sun Mar 28 07:41:00 2010
    Re: Google's Go language
    By: Nightfox to Rassilon on Sat Mar 27 2010 09:52 pm

    Hmmm...doesn't sound to specific...

    Hmmm...Ok...well, when somebody tells me exactly what it's used for I might check into it...in the meantime I'll try to work on my Doors.

    -Rass...

    ---
    Synchronet *[The Citadel BBS]* - citadel.synchro.net (PORT 4000) - Sci-Fi / Fantasy / Role
  • From Nightfox@DIGDIST/BATTLEST/FREEWAY to Rassilon on Sun Mar 28 10:31:00 2010
    Re: Google's Go language
    By: Rassilon to Nightfox on Sun Mar 28 2010 07:41:00

    Hmmm...doesn't sound to specific...

    Hmmm...Ok...well, when somebody tells me exactly what it's used for I might check into it...in the meantime I'll try to work on my Doors.


    My answer wasn't meant to be specific.. Honestly I don't know what people are using it for, but I don't think it was designed for only one use. Similar to how C++ is a general-purpose language, I thought Google's Go was also meant as a general-purpose language.

    Nightfox

    ---
    Synchronet Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From art@DIGDIST/BATTLEST/FREEWAY to Nightfox on Tue Sep 27 16:45:00 2011
    Hi all,

    My answer wasn't meant to be specific.. Honestly I don't know what people a using it for, but I don't think it was designed for only one use. Similar t how C++ is a general-purpose language, I thought Google's Go was also meant a general-purpose language.

    Google Go is good for concurrent processing (note: not the same as parallel). I've been taking a very brief look at it recently, and it seems to be a pretty nice language.

    It compiles, so it's much faster than an interpreter. Recent improvements include much better Windows platform support this year.

    Plus, with that awesome logo... why wouldn't you use it? :)

    On the serious side, I'll probably look into trying Go for a network server program when I have some spare time, and see how it fares.

    Regards,
    ________________ _______
    \_____ __ \ ___\
    \ __ \ <_ \ @ fatcats[dot]poorcoding[dot]com
    \_______\___\___\___\ ------------------------------------
    f a t c a t s b b s

    ---
    Synchronet fatcats bbs - http://fatcats.poorcoding.com
  • From Nightfox@DIGDIST/BATTLEST/FREEWAY to art on Wed Oct 12 13:10:00 2011
    Hi all,

    My answer wasn't meant to be specific.. Honestly I don't know what people a using it for, but I don't think it was designed for only one use. Similar t how C++ is a general-purpose language, I thought
    Google's Go was also meant a general-purpose language.

    Google Go is good for concurrent processing (note: not the same as parallel). I've been taking a very brief look at it recently, and it seems to be a pretty nice language.

    It compiles, so it's much faster than an interpreter. Recent improvements include much better Windows platform support this year.

    That's interesting.. It sounds worth looking into.

    Plus, with that awesome logo... why wouldn't you use it? :)

    :)

    On the serious side, I'll probably look into trying Go for a network server program when I have some spare time, and see how it fares.

    I'm curious about it, but one thing that keeps me from using different programming languages is that I'd like to be able to re-use code in other projects, but if you use a different language, it'll make that harder to do.
    If I were to have lots of things written in many different languages and I
    want to re-use some code, I may end up having to re-implement the code in the worst- case scenario. It would be nice to just be able to take a function (or set of functions) and just include it in another project and use it.

    Nightfox

    ---
    Synchronet Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From art@DIGDIST/BATTLEST/FREEWAY to Nightfox on Thu Oct 13 07:11:00 2011
    Re: Google's Go language
    By: Nightfox to art on Wed Oct 12 2011 13:10:23

    Hi Nightfox,

    I'm curious about it, but one thing that keeps me from using different programming languages is that I'd like to be able to re-use code in other projects, but if you use a different language, it'll make that harder to do. If I were to have lots of things written in many different languages and I want to re-use some code, I may end up having to re-implement the code in the
    worst- case scenario. It would be nice to just be able to take a function (or
    set of functions) and just include it in another project and use it.


    Agreed, one of my largest pains is porting already written code. Sqlite libraries I have coded for example, I tend to re-write in pretty much every language I code in, major painage.

    With CLR and COM things are a bit easier, however Google Go does not support either of these from what little I know.

    I think it's down to a few factors:

    - Know what languages are out there and where they shine.
    - Know what your coding requirements are.
    - Choose a language based on those, and your comfort.

    At the end of the day, I find that coding is very much like art, with the language akin to the medium used: we'd rarely say oil pastels are better than water colour in terms of quality of art... we'd more likely say, artist X is better than artist Y.

    In the same vein, I really believe the coder is what defines the quality of the program, not the programming language.

    Kind regards,

    / art @ fatcats [dot] poorcoding [dot] com \
    \ Fatcats +o - http://fatcats.poorcoding.com /

    ---
    Synchronet fatcats bbs - http://fatcats.poorcoding.com
  • From Nightfox@DIGDIST/BATTLEST/FREEWAY to art on Sat Oct 15 14:26:00 2011
    Re: Google's Go language
    By: art to Nightfox on Thu Oct 13 2011 07:11:01

    At the end of the day, I find that coding is very much like art, with the language akin to the medium used: we'd rarely say oil pastels are better tha water colour in terms of quality of art... we'd more likely say, artist X is better than artist Y.

    In the same vein, I really believe the coder is what defines the quality of program, not the programming language.

    I agree. And they say it's a poor craftsman who blames his tools. Really, you can do pretty much anything with any programming language. Some languages make things easier than others though - Some languages give you more framework than others upon which to create your projects, and that can make a difference in productivity and the time it takes to get something done. Although I like the challenge of implementing things myself (and I tend to feel a sense of pride once it's done and working), I also believe in the adage of why re-invent the wheel? I can appreciate a language with a good set of libraries behind it.

    Nightfox

    ---
    Synchronet Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From art@DIGDIST/BATTLEST/FREEWAY to Nightfox on Sun Oct 16 15:16:00 2011
    Re: Google's Go language
    By: Nightfox to art on Sat Oct 15 2011 14:26:37

    Hi Nightfox,

    In the same vein, I really believe the coder is what defines the quality program, not the programming language.
    I agree. And they say it's a poor craftsman who blames his tools. Really, can do pretty much anything with any programming language. Some languages things easier than others though - Some languages give you more framework others upon which to create your projects, and that can make a difference in productivity and the time it takes to get something done. Although I like

    Aye, another big factor for myself, is consistency--i.e,. is the standard library conceptually consistent.

    Although I do agree with what you've said, I have run into several languages that really seem to be fit for very specific purposes, or, at least, not fit for specific purposes...

    Regs,

    / art @ fatcats [dot] poorcoding [dot] com \
    \ Fatcats +o - http://fatcats.poorcoding.com /

    ---
    Synchronet fatcats bbs - http://fatcats.poorcoding.com
  • From Nightfox@DIGDIST/BATTLEST/FREEWAY to art on Sun Apr 1 14:53:00 2012
    Re: Google's Go language
    By: art to Nightfox on Sun Oct 16 2011 14:16:02

    Aye, another big factor for myself, is consistency--i.e,. is the standard library conceptually consistent.

    I agree there. I find that a language is easier to work with if its library is consistent. I think C++'s STL library is a good example, as many of the container classes have the same function names for appending elements, and the iterator behavior is consistent across the container classes. More recently I've been working a little bit with Java at work, and its library of container classes don't seem to be as consistent, so I find myself having to look up the documentation more often, which I think kills productivity a bit.

    Although I do agree with what you've said, I have run into several
    languages that really seem to be fit for very specific purposes, or, at least, not fit for specific purposes...

    That's true.. It seems that programming languages can be optimized for specific purposes, and when that happens, they work really well for those things, but they'll still be average at best for other tasks. I think Perl is one such langauge - Perl is really good at automating text processing and can be used for other things too, but I think it really shines at text processing.

    Nightfox

    ---/ desafortunadamente :: fortune cookie /---
    "What the devil am I doing here?"
    "Sounds like our captain."
    -- Picard and Riker in ST:TNG "Lonely Among Us"

    ---
    Synchronet Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From art@DIGDIST/BATTLEST/FREEWAY to Nightfox on Mon Apr 16 09:49:00 2012
    Re: Google's Go language
    By: Nightfox to art on Sun Apr 01 2012 13:53:01

    Hey NF,

    iterator behavior is consistent across the container classes. More recently I've been working a little bit with Java at work, and its library of container
    classes don't seem to be as consistent, so I find myself having to look up documentation more often, which I think kills productivity a bit.
    I'm 100% with you there. Every API call I look up is slowing me down. I can appreciate a learning curve, but again, consistency is a really big deal for me. It's a tough one to reconcile, as I also believe programmers should have choice and freedom to code in whatever manner and style they choose.

    things, but they'll still be average at best for other tasks. I think Perl one such langauge - Perl is really good at automating text processing and
    be used for other things too, but I think it really shines at text processing.
    Aye, I have this opinion as well. However, I have been told many times by perl monks that perl is "just as easy" or even better than other languages at parsing and processing. To be honest I'm not a perl guy so my opinion is somewhat ignorant.

    At the end of the day, I think it's up to the dev to choose what they feel is right. End users will always bitch and complain, and other devs will always say it should have been coding in another language. Such is life, and such is choice! :)

    Regards,

    art@fatcatsbbsdotcom

    "A girlfriend ? Oh, I never knew about that. Of course, the last
    person he would tell was his mother. What was she like ?"
    "He enjoyed her kindness, her gentleness, her physical attributes."
    -- Dr. Kyla Marr and Data in ST:TNG "Silicon Avatar"

    ---
    Synchronet fatcats bbs - fatcatsbbs.com
  • From Nightfox@DIGDIST/BATTLEST/FREEWAY to art on Sun Apr 22 20:06:00 2012
    Re: Google's Go language
    By: art to Nightfox on Mon Apr 16 2012 09:49:50

    recently I've been working a little bit with Java at work, and its
    library of container
    classes don't seem to be as consistent, so I find myself having to look
    up documentation more often, which I think kills productivity a bit.

    I'm 100% with you there. Every API call I look up is slowing me down. I
    can appreciate a learning curve, but again, consistency is a really big
    deal for me. It's a tough one to reconcile, as I also believe programmers should have choice and freedom to code in whatever manner and style they choose.

    I tend to feel the same way, and that's one of the reasons I appreciate C++ in that it allows for both functional and object-oriented programming, as well as multiple inheritance, etc.. Languages that force object-oriented design (such as Java and C#) can be silly in some ways, I think. For instance, they force you to have the main function as a static function inside a class - this just seems silly to me. Why have a class construct only for the main function to be static? The main function might as well be just a stand-alone function.

    Perl one such langauge - Perl is really good at automating text
    processing and be used for other things too, but I think it really
    shines at text processing.

    Aye, I have this opinion as well. However, I have been told many times by perl monks that perl is "just as easy" or even better than other languages at parsing and processing.

    I can see how people would say that. Perl does make it easy to do text parsing and processing because it has such features built into the language. You don't need to load any library or module, and you don't even need to call any functions - Perl has its =~ operator, which lets you apply a regular expression to a string (including search & replace).

    At the end of the day, I think it's up to the dev to choose what they feel is right. End users will always bitch and complain, and other devs will always say it should have been coding in another language. Such is life,
    and such is choice! :)

    Yep. :) They say to just use the best tool for the job.

    Nightfox


    ---
    Synchronet Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Mercyful Fate@DIGDIST/BATTLEST/FREEWAY to Nightfox on Tue May 5 02:09:00 2015
    Re: Google's Go language
    By: Nightfox to art on Sat Oct 15 2011 14:26:37

    I agree. And they say it's a poor craftsman who blames his tools. Really, can do pretty much anything with any programming language. Some languages m things easier than others though - Some languages give you more framework th others upon which to create your projects, and that can make a difference in productivity and the time it takes to get something done. Although I like t challenge of implementing things myself (and I tend to feel a sense of pride once it's done and working), I also believe in the adage of why re-invent th wheel? I can appreciate a language with a good set of libraries behind it.

    Words to live by. I agree completely. Right tool for the right job can
    always help with not reinventing the wheel. Sometimes though it can be the challenge of doing it yourself to learn a bit more how something works, although as time goes on, i think i much rather use a well established
    library then impliment everything from scratch now a days.

    ---
    Synchronet Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Nightfox@DIGDIST/BATTLEST/FREEWAY to Mercyful Fate on Tue May 5 07:49:00 2015
    Re: Google's Go language
    By: Mercyful Fate to Nightfox on Tue May 05 2015 02:09:50

    Words to live by. I agree completely. Right tool for the right job can always help with not reinventing the wheel. Sometimes though it can be the challenge of doing it yourself to learn a bit more how something works, although as time goes on, i think i much rather use a well established library then impliment everything from scratch now a days.

    I agree. I enjoy the challenge of developing something myself to better understand how it works, but many times it makes more sense to use an established library.

    Nightfox

    ---
    Synchronet Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Mercyful Fate@DIGDIST/BATTLEST/FREEWAY to Nightfox on Tue May 5 22:59:00 2015
    Re: Google's Go language
    By: Nightfox to Mercyful Fate on Tue May 05 2015 07:49:15

    I agree. I enjoy the challenge of developing something myself to better understand how it works, but many times it makes more sense to use an established library.

    I've done the same recently with SDL2. I've been working on Terminal program like Netrunner to get my feet wet with graphics programming and trying to
    also put some of my terminal know how to use. The only real way to advance BBS's now a days other then interconnecting services would be to update the interface and rendering. And I like having full screen to boot. :)

    Check it out sometime if your interested, it's an easy compile on and linux, OSX platform for 32 and 63 bit. My code is open so it's easy to use and compile and contributions are alawyas welcome on Github.

    I have a pre compile windows executable on the page also. https://github.com/M-Griffin/EtherTerm

    It's still in early development and the dialing directory doesn't have all
    the features yet, but you easily edit the xml dialingdirectory file to add
    any systems. I still have quite a bit of work left to do with it, but it's
    a great start.

    ---
    Synchronet Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Nightfox@DIGDIST/BATTLEST/FREEWAY to Mercyful Fate on Wed May 6 07:32:00 2015
    Re: Google's Go language
    By: Mercyful Fate to Nightfox on Tue May 05 2015 22:59:11

    The only real way
    to advance BBS's now a days other then interconnecting services would be to update the interface and rendering. And I like having full screen to boot. :)

    I think part of the charm of BBSes this days is using the terminal interface like the old days - It's mainly the nostalgia. But yeah, if there was a newer interface for some of the services a BBS provides, that would be cool too.

    I've done the same recently with SDL2. I've been working on Terminal program like Netrunner to get my feet wet with graphics programming and trying to also put some of my terminal know how to use.

    Check it out sometime if your interested, it's an easy compile on and linux, OSX platform for 32 and 63 bit. My code is open so it's easy to use and compile and contributions are alawyas welcome on Github.

    I have a pre compile windows executable on the page also. https://github.com/M-Griffin/EtherTerm

    I'll check it out. :)

    Nightfox

    ---
    Synchronet Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Mercyful Fate@DIGDIST/BATTLEST/FREEWAY to Nightfox on Wed May 6 22:13:00 2015
    Re: Google's Go language
    By: Nightfox to Mercyful Fate on Wed May 06 2015 07:32:33

    I think part of the charm of BBSes this days is using the terminal interface like the old days - It's mainly the nostalgia. But yeah, if there was a new interface for some of the services a BBS provides, that would be cool too.

    Oh i agree, but well at least in my opinion i think it could be even cooler with lighting or simple open GL affects to spice it up. But we'll see what the future holds.. I have ideas but not a lot of time at the moment with work and going back to school again.

    I have a pre compile windows executable on the page also. https://github.com/M-Griffin/EtherTerm

    I'll check it out. :)

    Cool, let me know if you have any questions or ideas.. i'm always open to feedback. I do have a bit of a rewrite to do on it. I was playing around with different ways to handle the innards using singletons and it made development quick and easy, but it made threading a bit hard so i have to rethink some of the basic's :)

    ---
    Synchronet Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
  • From Deavmi@DIGDIST/BATTLEST/FREEWAY to art on Fri Aug 4 22:45:00 2017
    On 2011-09-27 06:45 PM, art wrote:
    Hi all,

    > My answer wasn't meant to be specific.. Honestly I don't know what people a
    > using it for, but I don't think it was designed for only one use. Similar t
    > how C++ is a general-purpose language, I thought Google's Go was also meant
    > a general-purpose language.

    Google Go is good for concurrent processing (note: not the same as parallel). I've been taking a very brief look at it recently, and it seems to be a pretty
    nice language.

    It compiles, so it's much faster than an interpreter. Recent improvements include much better Windows platform support this year.

    Plus, with that awesome logo... why wouldn't you use it? :)

    On the serious side, I'll probably look into trying Go for a network server program when I have some spare time, and see how it fares.

    Regards,
    ________________ _______
    \_____ __ \ ___\
    \ __ \ <_ \ @ fatcats[dot]poorcoding[dot]com
    \_______\___\___\___\ ------------------------------------
    f a t c a t s b b s

    ---
    Synchronet fatcats bbs - http://fatcats.poorcoding.com

    No OOP though or atleast through classes. They do some struct stuff
    don't they.

    ---
    Synchronet KK4QBN + (706)-422-9538 + kk4qbn.synchro.net + 24/7/365