Golang and Rust, please learn each other.

[Kai Ji]

Nowadays I start to learn and I have got most of the features in rust. I heard that Rust is more efficient and designed better than golang mostly until I really study it! Now I just want to say, that is booooooooo shit!!! The reason we want to use the newest language without the c/c++/java is that we can't stand the complicated of them. Go is tooooo simple, but Rust is opposite! Rust's syntax doesn't fit to c like programmer,maybe the functional programming developer can adapt the troublesome syntax easier.

 I don't mean rust is a bad language, its design is really better than go, but almost all of the new features imported so many syntax or concept. When Apple say the GC is bad for performance, many people followed it whether they really think GC is the encumbrance of programs' running.  But in fact that Rust really own some cool and useful features to make programming convient. Now Go need some more.

For me, I want Go keep simplity forever. But Go need two things:

# Go should add the new ability to compile binary-library such as .dll on Windows or .so on Linux. Go can own its specific file suffix. If someone want to develop a GUI tool binding such as Qt, he can compile his projects to a go binary library, and other developers can use the library more convient.

# Go need more interaction with low-level system. It should be convient to write some low-level network protocols.

We all want go to become a great language. Hope Golang can make really changes to the programmer world.

[wkharold]

Having dealt with "DLL Hell" and enjoyed the simplicity of deploying a statically linked go binary using a simple scp command I don't care if go ever supports dynamic linking. But don't take my word for it think on the following for a bit: http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/dynamic-linking

[Dave Cheney]

Your post makes little sense. You are frustrated with Rust's complexity and non intuitive syntax, and you complain about this on a Go forum ?

On Sunday, 21 September 2014 01:59:45 UTC+10, Kai Ji wrote:

Nowadays I start to learn and I have got most of the features in rust. I heard that Rust is more efficient and designed better than golang mostly until I really study it! Now I just want to say, that is booooooooo shit!!! The reason we want to use the newest language without the c/c++/java is that we can't stand the complicated of them. Go is tooooo simple, but Rust is opposite! Rust's syntax doesn't fit to c like programmer,maybe the functional programming developer can adapt the troublesome syntax easier.

 I don't mean rust is a bad language, its design is really better than go, but almost all of the new features imported so many syntax or concept. When Apple say the GC is bad for performance, many people followed it whether they really think GC is the encumbrance of programs' running.  But in fact that Rust really own some cool and useful features to make programming convient. Now Go need some more.

Simply put, Go has no intention of being a language that ticks all the feature boxes. If you want that, you'll find a world of other languages that are competing in the feature arms race. I suggest you read this post, http://robnapier.net/go-is-a-shop-built-jig

 

For me, I want Go keep simplity forever. But Go need two things:

# Go should add the new ability to compile binary-library such as .dll on Windows or .so on Linux. Go can own its specific file suffix. If someone want to develop a GUI tool binding such as Qt, he can compile his projects to a go binary library, and other developers can use the library more convient.

If this is a request to be able to embed code written in Go into other languages, possibly as a plugin or loadable module this is still a long way from reality but you should read https://groups.google.com/d/topic/golang-dev/0_N7DLmrUFA/discussion

 

# Go need more interaction with low-level system. It should be convient to write some low-level network protocols.

I believe Go has all the facilities you need today.

 

We all want go to become a great language. Hope Golang can make really changes to the programmer world.

Good, then let's hear no more about Rust, and keep the cussin' to a minimum, thanks. 

[Gustavo Niemeyer]

This seems like a good place to have Rust vs. Go conversations, actually, and hopefully we can also make it feel like a safer place for people that are still finding their way with English and with communication in general.

gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[andrewc...@gmail.com]

I'm working on a prototype language which uses Go syntax and package style, but is much lower level with no garbage collector and allows gcc style inline assembly.
I'm aiming to be binary compatible with C by just using llvm and the clang linkers.

Planned features:

* multiple returns
* unions, structs, packed structs
* Go style packages instead of headers
* go syntax.
* inline assembly
* perfect interop with existing C libraries.
* GDB support.

Maybe it will be to your liking when It's compiling non trivial examples. My vision is far less complicated than rust, and lets you do what you want when it comes to low level things.