Reply to Message

No. No pointers.

CobraA1 11th Nov 2009

Umm, no. No pointers, no "*" symbols littered in my code
anymore, thanks.

. . . and, frankly, it pushes typing from bad to worse. No
OOP, and no replacement, other than what looks like a fairly
weak interface system? At the very least they can look at
typing systems that work rather than whining about how they
think typing systems don't work.

A whole lot of research has gone into typing in the field of
computer science - so yes, there are alternatives to the C++
and Java styles of typing. To just throw it all away sounds
totally naive.

OOP was a lot more about typing, frankly.

It was a way of organizing large projects. Despite their
claims to the contrary, OOP can actually make large projects
easier. The only reason why OOP is a barrier to creating
large projects is because many people go overboard and get
obsessed with making zillions of small classes.

If you keep the inheritance fairly clean and avoid making
everything you encounter a class, you should be fine. I have
no issues writing large projects.

In addition to providing a typing system, one of the things
inheritance provided was scope: The ability to control
the visibility of variables. And no, I really don't think
that silly capitalization rules and suffixes are a good
replacement for a decent packaging system.

Nothing is more painful in a large project than name clashes.
The scope frankly needs more clarity and the developer really
needs more control over scope than Go provides.

This is not a serious language. It's a toy.