why hasnt the windows version of this language not been released, they should release it bcoz in order for it to get popular user penetration is very important. and also nowadays there is a huge no. of windows base programmers....
> why hasnt the windows version of this language not been released, they > should release it bcoz in order for it to get popular user penetration > is very important. and also nowadays there is a huge no. of windows > base programmers....
It's in the process of being integrated. It's much better to have a version that works well than to have a version with lots of bugs. A later version with fewer bugs is less likely to incite tons of mailing list posts about why a Windows version was released that barely works, don't you agree?
that is exactly what i am talking about, developers should take equal care in developing any application for unix based os es and windows.... so that the windows version has a lesser or equal no. of bugs as compared to other system.
On Jan 10, 11:29 am, "Devon H. O'Dell" <devon.od...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > why hasnt the windows version of this language not been released, they > > should release it bcoz in order for it to get popular user penetration > > is very important. and also nowadays there is a huge no. of windows > > base programmers....
> It's in the process of being integrated. It's much better to have a > version that works well than to have a version with lots of bugs. A > later version with fewer bugs is less likely to incite tons of mailing > list posts about why a Windows version was released that barely works, > don't you agree?
On Sunday 10 January 2010 05:31:19 Swarup Sengupta wrote:
> why hasnt the windows version of this language not been released, they > should release it bcoz in order for it to get popular user penetration > is very important. and also nowadays there is a huge no. of windows base > programmers....
You mean some Windows-based programmers might be interested in writing in Go to target Google products? Obviously the vast majority of Windows programmers will target Windows and use .NET.
> > why hasnt the windows version of this language not been released, they > > should release it bcoz in order for it to get popular user penetration > > is very important. and also nowadays there is a huge no. of windows base > > programmers....
I think the current situation is quite understandable. It is a small team making the Go language. I think small teams are good in the initial phase to avoid design by committee feel to the product. It so happens that most of the important people in that group are steep in Unix tradition. So it is understandable I think that it get released on Unix first.
I'd say the Unix community has been a lot better at caring about other platforms than Windows developers, so I don't think there is much room for complaint here. Go is still young.
> You mean some Windows-based programmers might be interested in writing in Go > to target Google products? Obviously the vast majority of Windows programmers > will target Windows and use .NET.
I don't think that is entirely fair. I am sure some Windows developers care about cross platform software or that some Unix developers want their software to run on windows as well.
I am using it and its useful for learning Go programming. However, it doesn't have many packages and its bit older than the current version (for example, you have to use ;'s between statement - in the current main release, these have been made optional).
If Hector Chu is reading this mail chain: When can we expect the updated version of the Windows port? I assume there are many enthusiasts like me waiting to get that.
-Ganesh
On Jan 10, 10:31 am, Swarup Sengupta <swarupsengupt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> why hasnt the windows version of this language not been released, they > should release it bcoz in order for it to get popular user penetration > is very important. and also nowadays there is a huge no. of windows > base programmers....
> I am using it and its useful for learning Go programming. However, it > doesn't have many packages and its bit older than the current version > (for example, you have to use ;'s between statement - in the current > main release, these have been made optional).
> If Hector Chu is reading this mail chain: When can we expect the > updated version of the Windows port? I assume there are many > enthusiasts like me waiting to get that.
Support for generating PE executables was imported several weeks ago; the runtime package was imported last week, I believe. At this point, I think it's just a question of getting the syscall, net, and os packages done and fixing up the Makefiles / build scripts. Not sure what the process is; Hector said he was busy over the holidays, but I'd guess it's coming soon.
> On Jan 10, 10:31 am, Swarup Sengupta <swarupsengupt...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> why hasnt the windows version of this language not been released, they >> should release it bcoz in order for it to get popular user penetration >> is very important. and also nowadays there is a huge no. of windows >> base programmers....
Hey guys, it's me. Go is just a hobby for me, so I'm not sure how long it's going to take to fully port it to Windows. Certainly I've laid down useful groundwork should someone else decide to put some work in.
On Jan 11, 1:43 pm, "Devon H. O'Dell" <devon.od...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I am using it and its useful for learning Go programming. However, it > > doesn't have many packages and its bit older than the current version > > (for example, you have to use ;'s between statement - in the current > > main release, these have been made optional).
> > If Hector Chu is reading this mail chain: When can we expect the > > updated version of the Windows port? I assume there are many > > enthusiasts like me waiting to get that.
> Support for generating PE executables was imported several weeks ago; > the runtime package was imported last week, I believe. At this point, > I think it's just a question of getting the syscall, net, and os > packages done and fixing up the Makefiles / build scripts. Not sure > what the process is; Hector said he was busy over the holidays, but > I'd guess it's coming soon.
> --dho
> > -Ganesh
> > On Jan 10, 10:31 am, Swarup Sengupta <swarupsengupt...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> why hasnt the windows version of this language not been released, they > >> should release it bcoz in order for it to get popular user penetration > >> is very important. and also nowadays there is a huge no. of windows > >> base programmers....
My question isn't whether there is a windows version, but if it will be officially supported at some point. In other words when the language is upgraded, will the windows version end up lagging many versions behind and be somebody else's side project always? Or can support be simultaneously maintained once the proper framework is established?
I ask this as a linux developer. From a person point of view I despise windows, but from a practical point of view I like the things I do to be cross platform. For instance I use mingw to make windows binaries from linux. It seems to me that Go has the potential to be the "new C" only if it platform agnostic and it also seems like it was designed from the beginning to do this quite well.
On Jan 11, 5:47 pm, Hector <hector...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey guys, it's me. Go is just a hobby for me, so I'm not sure how long > it's going to take to fully port it to Windows. Certainly I've laid > down useful groundwork should someone else decide to put some work in.
> On Jan 11, 1:43 pm, "Devon H. O'Dell" <devon.od...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I am using it and its useful for learning Go programming. However, it > > > doesn't have many packages and its bit older than the current version > > > (for example, you have to use ;'s between statement - in the current > > > main release, these have been made optional).
> > > If Hector Chu is reading this mail chain: When can we expect the > > > updated version of the Windows port? I assume there are many > > > enthusiasts like me waiting to get that.
> > Support for generating PE executables was imported several weeks ago; > > the runtime package was imported last week, I believe. At this point, > > I think it's just a question of getting the syscall, net, and os > > packages done and fixing up the Makefiles / build scripts. Not sure > > what the process is; Hector said he was busy over the holidays, but > > I'd guess it's coming soon.
> > --dho
> > > -Ganesh
> > > On Jan 10, 10:31 am, Swarup Sengupta <swarupsengupt...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > >> why hasnt the windows version of this language not been released, they > > >> should release it bcoz in order for it to get popular user penetration > > >> is very important. and also nowadays there is a huge no. of windows > > >> base programmers....
Go won't end up properly supported on Windows unless people outside the core team, who really care about it being on Windows, take up the challenge and do it themselves. I doubt the core team will ever bother to spend any serious time maintaining such a port, because Windows seems a relatively expensive, unique, and awkward OS to write for. Since the few interesting features of Windows are better implemented in coherent and minimal operating systems, I would expect the core team to continue advancing the language and exercising their judgement to keep ugly hacks (like language changes specifically to support only Windows) out of the language specification.
All of this is to say that if you want a port to Windows, learn the language implementation and do it, rather than wait for it to be handed to you. You'll be a much better developer, both in Windows and Go, you'll be able to rely on yourself to make sure the port is up to date, and it'll be great open-source experience for your résumé.
On Jan 10, 7:29 am, "Devon H. O'Dell" <devon.od...@gmail.com> wrote: .
> It's in the process of being integrated. It's much better to have a > version that works well than to have a version with lots of bugs. A > later version with fewer bugs is less likely to incite tons of mailing > list posts about why a Windows version was released that barely works, > don't you agree?
A side-note: While porting the runtime certainly is an important and necessary effort, the libraries impose another challenge. Getting network and file IO idiomatically right, (IO completion points, http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa365198%28VS.85%29.aspx, console handles, buffered IO, binary vs. textual file handles, portabel EOF handling or native win32 applications comes to mind) is a major effort.
> Go won't end up properly supported on Windows unless people outside > the core team, who really care about it being on Windows, take up the > challenge and do it themselves. I doubt the core team will ever > bother to spend any serious time maintaining such a port, because > Windows seems a relatively expensive, unique, and awkward OS to write > for. Since the few interesting features of Windows are better > implemented in coherent and minimal operating systems, I would expect > the core team to continue advancing the language and exercising their > judgement to keep ugly hacks (like language changes specifically to > support only Windows) out of the language specification.
> All of this is to say that if you want a port to Windows, learn the > language implementation and do it, rather than wait for it to be > handed to you. You'll be a much better developer, both in Windows and > Go, you'll be able to rely on yourself to make sure the port is up to > date, and it'll be great open-source experience for your résumé.
We don't really need or want support from Windows people. If they want to use our language they can make their own port, but don't expect any help or support from us.
I'm perfectly good with this message if that really is how it is. In fact I've often dreamed of the killer application that Windows user could not use and would have to move to Linux to be able to use instead of it being the other way around.
The only annoying aspect to this for me is that I still have to soil my hands on occasion with Windows compatibility and this would force me away from Go.
But please don't suggest that I develop in windows to get this port, that is offensive to me as I feel the same contempt you do for Windows.
This discussion is turning sour for no good reason. The FAQ says:
Why doesn't Go run on Windows?
We understand that a significant fraction of computers in the world run Windows and it would be great if those computers could run Go programs. However, the Go team is small and we don't have the resources to do a Windows port at the moment. We would be more than willing to answer questions and offer advice to anyone willing to develop a Windows version.
and this is an accurate portrayal of the situation, at least among the core Go developers. We hoped that someone with the right background and expertise would step forward, and Hector did a great job writing all the low-level hard parts for the port. Eventually someone (maybe Hector, maybe someone else) will finish os and net, and then it will be mainly a question of maintenance, as almost all the system- specific code is restricted to those packages.
All the anti-Windows vitriol in this thread is uncalled for and not universally felt. We just have other priorities.
@Russ - absolutely rightly said. @others - this poll was absolutely not started as an "alliance for windows". what i wanted to point out that as windows is still the most popular os around, it will b useful to have a full fledged version of go for windows. it will lead not to world domination of microsoft( i am against monopoly), but ultimately to higher acceptance rates and more popularity of go. On Jan 12, 11:34 pm, Russ Cox <r...@golang.org> wrote:
> This discussion is turning sour for no good reason. The FAQ says:
> Why doesn't Go run onWindows?
> We understand that a significant fraction of computers > in the world runWindowsand it would be great if those > computers could run Go programs. However, the Go team > is small and we don't have the resources to do aWindows > port at the moment. We would be more than willing to answer > questions and offer advice to anyone willing to develop > aWindowsversion.
> and this is an accurate portrayal of the situation, at least > among the core Go developers. We hoped that someone > with the right background and expertise would step forward, > and Hector did a great job writing all the low-level hard parts > for the port. Eventually someone (maybe Hector, maybe > someone else) will finish os and net, and then it will be > mainly a question of maintenance, as almost all the system- > specific code is restricted to those packages.
> All the anti-Windowsvitriol in this thread is uncalled for andnotuniversally felt. We just have other priorities.
> Hey guys, it's me. Go is just a hobby for me, so I'm not sure how long > it's going to take to fully port it to Windows. Certainly I've laid > down useful groundwork should someone else decide to put some work in.
I've a full-time job, so I cannot commit myself. But I'll sure give my best. And I have prior work experience in compilers. Can you please share me the details of the port? How to get the sources, what changes were made, which compiler was used to build for windows, which make mechanism was used etc.? BTW, is there anyone else interested who can share doing this port and keep it updated?
>> Hey guys, it's me. Go is just a hobby for me, so I'm not sure how long >> it's going to take to fully port it to Windows. Certainly I've laid >> down useful groundwork should someone else decide to put some work in.
> I've a full-time job, so I cannot commit myself. But I'll sure give my > best. And I have prior work experience in compilers. Can you please > share me the details of the port? How to get the sources, what changes > were made, which compiler was used to build for windows, which make > mechanism was used etc.? BTW, is there anyone else interested who can > share doing this port and keep it updated?
The current source is in the Go source tree. It is intended to be built in the MinGW environment. Instructions for building Go are available via http://www.golang.org; in this case, you're going to want to set GOOS=mingw.
I do not have any Win32 API experience, so I'm afraid I won't be of any help other than suggesting what parts will be useful.
Hello
everyone.I
was making changes to compile on Windows Go.I was using the GCC
compiler but without using MSYS or CYGWIN.To this was changing the
Makefile by replacing all existing bash and using only the mingw32-make
to compile. It would be a good time
to replace all the Makefile bash by making the build more flexible for
all platforms and compilers? In addition to changing
the value of the variable of GOOS mingw to win?
Grateful for the attention.
Daniel
Devon H. O'Dell escreveu:
The current source is in the Go source tree. It is intended to be
built in the MinGW environment. Instructions for building Go are
available via http://www.golang.org; in this case, you're going to
want to set GOOS=mingw.
I do not have any Win32 API experience, so I'm afraid I won't be of
any help other than suggesting what parts will be useful.
--dho
As someone who uses Windows, I am aware that there are many problems with that operating system. But I use Windows at work in order to share tasks with the many other people in my workplace who prefer to use it for whatever their reasons may be. I imagine there are lots of others in this group who are in the same situation, and some who like Windows. But despite this and other differences we may have, everyone in this group shares an interest in Go, and on that basis, we should be able to get along well with each other.
On Jan 12, 12:30 pm, Don Dailey <dailey....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 11, 8:37 pm, Jason Catena <jason.cat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Go won't end up properly supported on Windows unless people outside > > the core team, who really care about it being on Windows, take up the > > challenge and do it themselves. I doubt the core team will ever > > bother to spend any serious time maintaining such a port, because > > Windows seems a relatively expensive, unique, and awkward OS to write > > for. Since the few interesting features of Windows are better > > implemented in coherent and minimal operating systems, I would expect > > the core team to continue advancing the language and exercising their > > judgement to keep ugly hacks (like language changes specifically to > > support only Windows) out of the language specification.
> > All of this is to say that if you want a port to Windows, learn the > > language implementation and do it, rather than wait for it to be > > handed to you. You'll be a much better developer, both in Windows and > > Go, you'll be able to rely on yourself to make sure the port is up to > > date, and it'll be great open-source experience for your résumé.
> We don't really need or want support from Windows people. If they > want to use our language they can make their own port, but don't > expect any help or support from us.
> I'm perfectly good with this message if that really is how it is. In > fact I've often dreamed of the killer application that Windows user > could not use and would have to move to Linux to be able to use > instead of it being the other way around.
> The only annoying aspect to this for me is that I still have to soil > my hands on occasion with Windows compatibility and this would force > me away from Go.
> But please don't suggest that I develop in windows to get this port, > that is offensive to me as I feel the same contempt you do for > Windows.
> Hey guys, it's me. Go is just a hobby for me, so I'm not sure how long > it's going to take to fully port it to Windows. Certainly I've laid > down useful groundwork should someone else decide to put some work in.
> On Jan 11, 1:43 pm, "Devon H. O'Dell" <devon.od...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I am using it and its useful for learning Go programming. However, it > > > doesn't have many packages and its bit older than the current version > > > (for example, you have to use ;'s between statement - in the current > > > main release, these have been made optional).
> > > If Hector Chu is reading this mail chain: When can we expect the > > > updated version of the Windows port? I assume there are many > > > enthusiasts like me waiting to get that.
> > Support for generating PE executables was imported several weeks ago; > > the runtime package was imported last week, I believe. At this point, > > I think it's just a question of getting the syscall, net, and os > > packages done and fixing up the Makefiles / build scripts. Not sure > > what the process is; Hector said he was busy over the holidays, but > > I'd guess it's coming soon.
> > --dho
> > > -Ganesh
> > > On Jan 10, 10:31 am, Swarup Sengupta <swarupsengupt...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > >> why hasnt the windows version of this language not been released, they > > >> should release it bcoz in order for it to get popular user penetration > > >> is very important. and also nowadays there is a huge no. of windows > > >> base programmers....
