Goals and Priorities for C++

Re:Goals and Priorities for C++ by apta on Friday May 22, 2020 @01:36AM (#23268959)

The people who designed golang did not have PhDs in PL. They were not even PL designers to begin with, and it shows at how poorly designed it is. (And no, one person who happened to work on C doesn't count, since language design evolved a lot since then).

Incidentally, golang did not end up replacing C++ or Java in the slightest, especially at Google. It is in the same space as python.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Goals and Priorities for C++ by platinumrad on Friday May 22, 2020 @02:49AM (#23269318)

I have criticisms of Go too, but your statement is factually incorrect. Robert Griesemer did a PhD under Niklaus Wirth.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Goals and Priorities for C++ by apta on Friday May 22, 2020 @04:32AM (#23269853)

Thanks for the information, I didn't know that. It just make it weirder how the language turned out. Perhaps he didn't influence the initial design enough?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Goals and Priorities for C++ by jfkebwjsbx on Friday May 22, 2020 @05:21AM (#23270128)

Having a PhD on a field does not automatically imply you can produce good results, specially if targeted for widespread consumption. It is actually very rare when that happens.

I am not saying that is the case here one way or the other, though.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Goals and Priorities for C++ by danielscrubs on Friday May 22, 2020 @06:11AM (#23270415)

Under Niklaus Wirth nonetheless, that's just awesome, the grand dad of performant compilers.

Having a PhD means you studied for years to push boundaries, nothing more, nothing less. Lets not forget that the bosses usually decides exactly what should be done with sprints and standup, especially in teams that are not research focused.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Goals and Priorities for C++ by sacado2 on Friday May 22, 2020 @06:25AM (#23270507)

Actually I think go is semantically much closer to oberon than to C.

[ Parent | on HN ]