Swift and Go: Building a Fast Future

Re:Swift and Go: Building a Fast Future by Joky on Tuesday November 18, 2014 @02:49PM (#8625905)

Yes! Two modern languages that are 1) statically typed and 2) statically compiled. At least some people still get it that "modern" and "nice to use" does not implies scripting-like dynamically-fancy typed language "à la" PHP/Python/Javascript/... And the author did not mention Playground for Swift which is just incredibly useful to start experimenting with the language! (Edit: of course Rust is another one as well, but I was in the context of the article)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Swift and Go: Building a Fast Future by derengel on Tuesday November 18, 2014 @03:02PM (#8625974)

you know what they say about Go being modern right?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Swift and Go: Building a Fast Future by Joky on Tuesday November 18, 2014 @04:04PM (#8626348)

please, enlighten me :)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Swift and Go: Building a Fast Future by jakevn on Tuesday November 18, 2014 @05:03PM (#8626670)

For better or worse, Go's design is anything but modern.

It lacks things such as immutability and generics. It also perpetuates the mistake of including a run-time type error, null (nil).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Swift and Go: Building a Fast Future by tomp on Tuesday November 18, 2014 @06:01PM (#8626978)

More precisely, Go has generics (along with overloading), they are just not available to users of the language.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Swift and Go: Building a Fast Future by Joky on Tuesday November 18, 2014 @08:14PM (#8627585)

Note that modern does not mean perfect. I'm not sure you answer could not fall into the "this-language-lacks-my-favorite-cool-fancy-feature-so-it-is-necessarily-an-old-fashioned-crappy-piece-of-s*" syndrome?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Swift and Go: Building a Fast Future by jakevn on Tuesday November 18, 2014 @08:29PM (#8627635)

Were they actually fancy or cool, maybe. They're rather basic features among statically typed languages.

Also, I'm not trying to say Go is bad or that I dislike it. It's simply not a modern language as far as design goes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Swift and Go: Building a Fast Future by masklinn on Tuesday November 18, 2014 @05:11PM (#8626709)

That it might have deserved the moniker if it had been released around the same time as java.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Swift and Go: Building a Fast Future by coldtea on Tuesday November 18, 2014 @05:50PM (#8626916)

Make that a few decades before actually:

http://cowlark.com/2009-11-15-go/

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Swift and Go: Building a Fast Future by masklinn on Wednesday November 19, 2014 @03:39AM (#8628895)

Well it does have a structural type system (one of the few other languages with one being OCaml, '96), a GC (popularised/made acceptable by Java '95) and provides language-level support for CSP (Occam '83)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Swift and Go: Building a Fast Future by Joky on Wednesday November 19, 2014 @02:49PM (#8632188)

Thanks for the link, that was very interesting to read! I didn't know Algol (I knew the name and how "historical" it is but not the details).

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Swift and Go: Building a Fast Future by twic on Wednesday November 19, 2014 @03:05PM (#8632284)

Hadn't seen this before. This is brilliant. Thanks.

So, who's up for an Algol-15 project?

[ Parent | on HN ]