News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on On comparing languages, C++ and Go. Parent comment

Re:On comparing languages, C++ and Go by RamiK on Saturday October 05, 2013 @05:18PM (#6502115)
Ha? Doesn't it work through the 'import "C"' and then it's just regular C?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:On comparing languages, C++ and Go by pbsd on Saturday October 05, 2013 @05:23PM (#6502125)
I meant something like this, i.e. not going through C at all: http://golang.org/src/pkg/syscall/asm_freebsd_amd64.s
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:On comparing languages, C++ and Go by mseepgood on Saturday October 05, 2013 @06:08PM (#6502262)
It looks like AT&T assembly without the %s. Not really that weird.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:On comparing languages, C++ and Go by RamiK on Saturday October 05, 2013 @06:11PM (#6502273)
Oh. You mean the Plan 9 assembler... It's pretty good looking to me so I haven't really considered that an issue. I guess you're on the other side of the AT&T vs. Intel assembly fence... But just how much assembly are we writing this days anyhow? I say, just wrap it all up in Go (or C through cgo) and be done with it.
[ Parent | on HN ]