Another go at Go failed

Re:Another go at Go failed by sixthloginorso on Wednesday January 08, 2014 @08:35AM (#7023335)

The author said that he needed a generic set for different concrete types, so he'd have to write a bunch of these functions for all the combinations he needed. And he did. And it was a mess. And it was also slow.

Edit: not that we can conclude anything from the lack of performance, though, we don't know how it was written.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Another go at Go failed by lafar6502 on Wednesday January 08, 2014 @08:46AM (#7023384)

I believe it was a mess. But i don't believe it couldn't be done correctly in Go or whatever language you take.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Another go at Go failed by Roboprog on Wednesday January 08, 2014 @11:27AM (#7024479)

My guess would be too much "noun oriented thinking".

Some of us came of age before the tyranny of King Java, learning such obsolescent tools as Pascal, Lisp and C back in school. (I'm gonna ignore BASIC and FORTRAN, other than as examples of what not to do) We learned how to pass around individual functions/procedures to support library code.

http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom...

[ Parent | on HN ]