Go binary distributions

[Andrew Gerrand]

Hi Gophers,

We're close to issuing a Go 1 release candidate, and so I would like
to enlist your help in testing the binary distributions. We now
provide pre-built Go tool chains for FreeBSD, Linux, OS X, and
Windows. These break the installation dependencies on Mercurial and
GCC, making it much easier for users to get started with Go. Yay!

Please follow the installation instructions here:
http://weekly.golang.org/doc/install

The files are available here:
http://code.google.com/p/go/downloads/list

We want to make sure that new users have the best experience possible,
so please let us know if you have any issues with installation, the
documentation, or using the tools after installation.

Please leave feedback (both positive and negative) in the issue
tracker entry relevant to your operating system and architecture:

http://golang.org/issue/3210 darwin-386
http://golang.org/issue/3208 darwin-amd64
http://golang.org/issue/3212 freebsd-386
http://golang.org/issue/3213 freebsd-amd64
http://golang.org/issue/3209 linux-386
http://golang.org/issue/3211 linux-amd64
http://golang.org/issue/3214 windows-386
http://golang.org/issue/3215 windows-amd64

Make sure you tell us the version of the operating system you use.

Thanks for your help!

Andrew

[Alvaro GP]

Great!

Seems that people have already voted with their downloads, and the numbers say...

- Don't waste a single minute on the FreeBSD port.

- Focus on the Windows port.

[Guillermo Estrada]

Yes, the numbers reflect that Windows port is what people would go
after (point to mention amd64 build was released much later). What I
can tell is that Windows has so little options for building native
applications fast and easy (Maybe D compiler). Everything else relies
on complex installations/configurations/dependencies or really heavy
IDE's and SDK's, this is where Go will totally come to save us all
(apart from being awesome), already testing both windows ports. Will
the RC will be named as such? or will it be another weekly we would
just call RC?

[senior7515]

On Mar 6, 5:34 pm, Alvaro GP <alvar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Great!
>
> Seems that people have already voted with their downloads, and the numbers
> say...
>
> - Don't waste a single minute on the FreeBSD port.

I disagree. Why would they do such a thing? It is one of the official
supported platforms.

[Julien Laffaye]

On 3/6/2012 10:27 PM, Andrew Gerrand wrote:
> Hi Gophers,
>
> We're close to issuing a Go 1 release candidate, and so I would like
> to enlist your help in testing the binary distributions. We now
> provide pre-built Go tool chains for FreeBSD, Linux, OS X, and
> Windows. These break the installation dependencies on Mercurial and
> GCC, making it much easier for users to get started with Go. Yay!
>
> Please follow the installation instructions here:
> http://weekly.golang.org/doc/install
>
> The files are available here:
> http://code.google.com/p/go/downloads/list
>
> We want to make sure that new users have the best experience possible,
> so please let us know if you have any issues with installation, the
> documentation, or using the tools after installation.

I think people using Linux or FreeBSD would prefer to install Go from
their package manager.
I know we are talking about binary distribution here, but we will have a
source tarball too, right?

[Andrew Gerrand]

On 7 March 2012 10:08, Guillermo Estrada <phro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Will
> the RC will be named as such? or will it be another weekly we would
> just call RC?

It will be tagged as a weekly but we will publicise it as the release candidate.

Andrew

[Andrew Gerrand]

On 7 March 2012 10:52, Julien Laffaye <kim...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/6/2012 10:27 PM, Andrew Gerrand wrote:
>>
>> Hi Gophers,
>>
>> We're close to issuing a Go 1 release candidate, and so I would like
>> to enlist your help in testing the binary distributions. We now
>> provide pre-built Go tool chains for FreeBSD, Linux, OS X, and
>> Windows. These break the installation dependencies on Mercurial and
>> GCC, making it much easier for users to get started with Go. Yay!
>>
>> Please follow the installation instructions here:
>>   http://weekly.golang.org/doc/install
>>
>> The files are available here:
>>   http://code.google.com/p/go/downloads/list
>>
>> We want to make sure that new users have the best experience possible,
>> so please let us know if you have any issues with installation, the
>> documentation, or using the tools after installation.
>
> I think people using Linux or FreeBSD would prefer to install Go from their
> package manager.
> I know we are talking about binary distribution here, but we will have a
> source tarball too, right?

I hadn't planned on it, mainly because installing Mercurial isn't a
big hurdle to the kind of people that build from source.

Andrew

[Julien Laffaye]

I maintain the FreeBSD ports of Go [1] and right now I have to make a
tarball and upload it for each go weekly.
That is because of various policies: we just do not want to clone from a
repo in the ports tree infrastructure because we want to know what we
are building.

I think an official source tarball would also benefit to Gentoo or any
system which automates package building.

[1] http://www.freshports.org/lang/go

[Brad Fitzpatrick]

Seems like an invalid motivation.

With hg/git/etc, you can have that property. (as opposed to cvs/svn/etc where the server may change its state).

[Andy Balholm]

Using a tarball could also keep the Go port from needing to depend on the Python port.

[Devon H. O'Dell]

Op 6 maart 2012 19:27 heeft Brad Fitzpatrick <brad...@golang.org> het
volgende geschreven:

>> I maintain the FreeBSD ports of Go [1] and right now I have to make a
>> tarball and upload it for each go weekly.
>> That is because of various policies: we just do not want to clone from a
>> repo in the ports tree infrastructure because we want to know what we are
>> building.
>
> Seems like an invalid motivation.
>
> With hg/git/etc, you can have that property. (as opposed to cvs/svn/etc
> where the server may change its state).

Then we would need to do checksumming in a different way, which could
potentially break people who are using security wrappers around ports
installs (that require correct checksums / check versions for CVE
vulnerabilities, etc). We'd have to have a checksum of every file.
We'd have to make mercurial a build dependency (which it really isn't
if you consider it's only needed to get source, not to build it). Once
mercurial is a dependency, suddenly the person needs python and a host
of other ports that nobody who uses go cares about (per se!) unless
they are developing go.

I'm not saying you should give us all these things (a weekly tarball +
checksum, or some similar alternative) to make the FreeBSD port easier
to maintain, but I am saying that it is not an invalid motivation.
There are nuanced situations that you aren't considering that make
doing this cleanly within the ports / package infrastructure
prohibitively difficult.

I would prefer to see FreeBSD 9.x, and 8.x releases of Go 1 in a
format that someone can pkg_add. There are no run dependencies, so
this shouldn't be a huge hassle, and I'm sure that either one of
Julien or I would be happy to help out with that. I'll add comments to
the tickets to the same effect.

--dho

[Andrew Gerrand]

Good points. Does this give you what you need?

http://code.google.com/p/go/downloads/detail?name=go.weekly.2012-03-04.src.tar.gz

The SHA1 sum is on that page.

> I would prefer to see FreeBSD 9.x, and 8.x releases of Go 1 in a
> format that someone can pkg_add. There are no run dependencies, so
> this shouldn't be a huge hassle, and I'm sure that either one of
> Julien or I would be happy to help out with that. I'll add comments to
> the tickets to the same effect.

Thanks!

Andrew

[Brad Fitzpatrick]

Those are all great points.

I was merely pointing out that you can still do hermetic builds with remote vcses.

[Devon H. O'Dell]

Op 6 maart 2012 21:07 heeft Andrew Gerrand <a...@golang.org> het
volgende geschreven:

I think so -- Julien, does that make your life easier? :)

--dho

[Hotei]

Some more FreeBSD comments...

A lot of people using FreeBSD are __VERY__ concerned about stability.  I use FreeBSD extensively for servers (no GUI) and decided to NOT use go there until it achieves at least the stability of a GO-1 release.  It's bad enough chasing weekly changes in one OS at a time as I prefer Ubuntu for desktop use.  Once GO-1 is released I plan to immediately start using it on FreeBSD. But not until.  SO I guess I'm saying that your relying on counting downloads of binary distributions might be completely off as an indicator of "Interest in Go" from the FreeBSD community. 

On the other hand, I prefer to stay with the package/port paradigm where I can (using the FreeBSD port mechanism) inspect and / or compile the code being run on my system before actually deploying it.  Making that harder to do is "not a good thing".   So to be clear, I'd agree that a binary port of go to FreeBSD could be back-burner, but please don't drop FreeBSD from the source distribution. 

[Brad Fitzpatrick]

On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Hotei <hote...@gmail.com> wrote:

Some more FreeBSD comments...

A lot of people using FreeBSD are __VERY__ concerned about stability.  I use FreeBSD extensively for servers (no GUI) and decided to NOT use go there until it achieves at least the stability of a GO-1 release.  It's bad enough chasing weekly changes in one OS at a time as I prefer Ubuntu for desktop use.  Once GO-1 is released I plan to immediately start using it on FreeBSD. But not until.  SO I guess I'm saying that your relying on counting downloads of binary distributions might be completely off as an indicator of "Interest in Go" from the FreeBSD community. 

On the other hand, I prefer to stay with the package/port paradigm where I can (using the FreeBSD port mechanism) inspect and / or compile the code being run on my system before actually deploying it.  Making that harder to do is "not a good thing".   So to be clear, I'd agree that a binary port of go to FreeBSD could be back-burner, but please don't drop FreeBSD from the source distribution. 

 

What does "drop FreeBSD from the source distribution" mean?

[Hotei]

See comment above by Senior7515.  "Don't waste another minute on the FreeBSD port."

[Hotei]

Sorry, Senior7515 was quoting Alvaro GP, I just happened to read it in his post.

On Tuesday, March 6, 2012 9:35:27 PM UTC-5, Brad Fitzpatrick wrote:

[Andrew Gerrand]

On 7 March 2012 13:39, Hotei <hote...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Don't waste another minute on the FreeBSD port."

Whomever said this originally doesn't speak for the Go project.
FreeBSD is and will remain fully supported. We are not going to just
throw that work away because of some off hand comment on a mailing
list.

The goal is to support more platforms, not less.

Andrew

[Jingcheng Zhang]

Hello,

Just be curious, why there is no zip archive for Windows distribution anymore?
Many people (like me) prefer zip archive to msi package.

Thanks

--
Best regards,
Jingcheng Zhang
Beijing, P.R.China

[Johann Höchtl]

I think this view is skewed. I can't say a word about FreeBSD but at least on Linux it is common to build from sources, especially as the required tools are either present or an apt-get away, which is not true for Windows.

[Ingo Oeser]

In short: No binaries for Linux required and actually harmful. Please provide proper distribution packaging or support others doing it.

On Wednesday, March 7, 2012 12:52:32 AM UTC+1, kimelto wrote:

I think people using Linux or FreeBSD would prefer to install Go from
their package manager.
I know we are talking about binary distribution here, but we will have a
source tarball too, right?

No binary tar balls required for Linux, since one size fits all doesn't work with the variety of distributions. 

Just support  people like the great Gophers at https://launchpad.net/~gophers/+archive/go 

and help people with older binaries of the tool chain get the odd fix running.

I had the weekly stuff running even on vintage Debian Lenny using their source package 

and a small fix from the Mecurial to get some of our stuff running.

Good example how to do it right, even when you want to provide the binaries yourself is Virtual Box.

See https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Linux_Downloads for the matrix usually required.

Java jrockit installables are a good example how NOT to do it.

I would go as far as claiming that binaries for Linux are even harmful because desktop users tend to try them and risk their nice 

and consistent package management with it and ask for help half a year later because sth. doesn't work.

Best Regards

Ingo Oeser

[Julien Laffaye]

It does.
What would be the version scheme? 2012-03-04 is not that standard.
20120304 or 2012.03.04 would be better.

[Vitaly]

> - Focus on the Windows port.

Disagree..

I increased Windows-port downloads counter only because Windows is NOT
my development platform.
It is very easy to build go from scratch on Mac and Linux. As a
result, counters for other platforms are untouched:)

[minux]

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Ingo Oeser <night...@googlemail.com> wrote:

In short: No binaries for Linux required and actually harmful. Please provide proper distribution packaging or support others doing it.

On Wednesday, March 7, 2012 12:52:32 AM UTC+1, kimelto wrote:

I think people using Linux or FreeBSD would prefer to install Go from
their package manager.
I know we are talking about binary distribution here, but we will have a
source tarball too, right?

No binary tar balls required for Linux, since one size fits all doesn't work with the variety of distributions. 

Just support  people like the great Gophers at https://launchpad.net/~gophers/+archive/go 

and help people with older binaries of the tool chain get the odd fix running. 

I had the weekly stuff running even on vintage Debian Lenny using their source package 

and a small fix from the Mecurial to get some of our stuff running.

Good example how to do it right, even when you want to provide the binaries yourself is Virtual Box.

See https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Linux_Downloads for the matrix usually required.

Go is just different (it only depends on 2.6.x+ kernel and libc+libpthread). If you found a system where

the packaged binary doesn't work, then it is a bug, please report it.

Providing a version for each distribution will fail because there are always distributions you didn't

know.

I would go as far as claiming that binaries for Linux are even harmful because desktop users tend to try them and risk their nice 

and consistent package management with it and ask for help half a year later because sth. doesn't work.

It is installed in /usr/local, which is supposed to be just the place for 3rdparty software not managed by

package managers.

[Marvin Renich]

* minux <minu...@gmail.com> [120307 08:23]:

> > I would go as far as claiming that binaries for Linux are even harmful
> > because desktop users tend to try them and risk their nice
> > and consistent package management with it and ask for help half a year
> > later because sth. doesn't work.
> >
> It is installed in /usr/local, which is supposed to be just the place for
> 3rdparty software not managed by
> package managers.

According to the FHS (I don't know what SUS says about this), /usr/local
is for the local administrator's use. Third party software should be
installed in /opt.

...Marvin

[minux]

Sorry about that, but my point is that /usr/local is not managed by package managers.

[Alvaro GP]

Fair enough. I just wish that Google placed a fair amount of their infinite resources on the most important platform, which happens to be Windows. And by "fair amount" I mean that if Google cared about the Go language then we would already have an official GUI library and a great IDE. Of course I'm not blaming the Go team (they have done more than we could ever expect).

[Paul Borman]

official GUI library and a great IDE != importance

If you are writing GUI based programs then a GUI library is quiet helpful.  If you are writing back end servers or daemons or so many other things GUI is not needed at all.

vi + go == great IDE

At least, for me it does.  I used to say vi + make.  Clearly it is different for different people.

I would much prefer a strong excellent compiler with a consistent and well defined language than a GUI library or IDE.  Without the first the latter doesn't matter and quite frankly, the latter is not required by everyone. 

    -Paul

[Brad Fitzpatrick]

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Alvaro GP <alva...@gmail.com> wrote:

Fair enough. I just wish that Google placed a fair amount of their infinite resources

Google's resources are finite.

The Go team's resources are even more finite.

 

 on the most important platform,

which happens to be Windows.

That happens to be subjective.  To Google, subjectively, the most important platform is linux-amd64.  We have a few of those machines. 

And by "fair amount" I mean that if Google cared about the Go language then we would already have an official GUI library and a great IDE. Of course I'm not blaming the Go team (they have done more than we could ever expect).

We're the wrong people to write a GUI library, since we wouldn't be using it.  Itches should be scratched by the people with the itch.  Somebody who's actually using a GUI library would probably write a much better GUI library.

[Alvaro GP]

On Wednesday, March 7, 2012 8:32:31 PM UTC+1, Brad Fitzpatrick wrote:

That happens to be subjective.  To Google, subjectively, the most important platform is linux-amd64.  We have a few of those machines.

If I'm not mistaken, Go is a general purpose language, for all kinds of computers, of which 90% run Windows. There is nothing subjective about that.

 

We're the wrong people to write a GUI library, since we wouldn't be using it.  Itches should be scratched by the people with the itch.  Somebody who's actually using a GUI library would probably write a much better GUI library.

And that's the problem. It seems to me that Google is persuaded by the stupid idea that GUI libraries are unnecessary because everything should run in a browser. Obviously Google could hire an army of experts in GUI libraries. They don't do it because they don't want / don't care, and as a result they are making it impossible for Go to become a successful language.

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Alvaro GP <alva...@gmail.com> writes:

> And that's the problem. It seems to me that Google is persuaded by the
> stupid idea that GUI libraries are unnecessary because everything should
> run in a browser. Obviously Google could hire an army of experts in GUI
> libraries. They don't do it because they don't want / don't care, and as a
> result they are making it impossible for Go to become a successful language.

Google != Go. The Go team is relatively small.

I agree that if a criteria for a succesful language is having a GUI
library, then Go is failing. Fortunately for me, I don't use a GUI
library.

Ian

[David Leimbach]

On Tuesday, March 6, 2012 2:34:52 PM UTC-8, Alvaro GP wrote:

Great!

Seems that people have already voted with their downloads, and the numbers say...

- Don't waste a single minute on the FreeBSD port.

- Focus on the Windows port.

People get their FreeBSD software from the  "ports" system more often than anything else I'd wager.   This counter probably means very little.

[Jan Mercl]

Please. Get yourself a Windows™ license, a Visual Studio™ license, a Windows™ only® programming language of your choice license with a WinAPI™ GUI Windows™ only® support - and be happy.

[Kyle Lemons]

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Alvaro GP <alva...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, March 7, 2012 8:32:31 PM UTC+1, Brad Fitzpatrick wrote:

That happens to be subjective.  To Google, subjectively, the most important platform is linux-amd64.  We have a few of those machines.

If I'm not mistaken, Go is a general purpose language,

Go was originally designed to be a systems language; it has since turned out to also be a very capable general purpose language as well.  I think you'll find that, even on Windows, a huge number of processes are running that have no graphical interface of any kind.

 

for all kinds of computers, of which 90% run Windows.

That statistic may be slightly out of date.  If you are talking about "Desk- and Laptop Personal Computers for Home Use" then possibly, but when looking at "all kinds of computers" I think you'll find that a *vast* majority of them don't run Windows.

In either case, though, Go runs on Windows.  Windows' market share, to me, is tangential to the importance of the availability of a GUI library.

[André Moraes]

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Alvaro GP <alva...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fair enough. I just wish that Google placed a fair amount of their infinite
> resources on the most important platform, which happens to be Windows. And

Why you say the "most important platform is windows"? Just because it
has "more user"? I think you are just counting one side of the coin
(the desktop).

On the server side most of the computers are running Linux which are
much more than desktops. It is very likely that the DNS that you used
to sent your complaints are running on Linux.

> by "fair amount" I mean that if Google cared about the Go language then we
> would already have an official GUI library and a great IDE. Of course I'm
> not blaming the Go team (they have done more than we could ever expect).

You could asked for some GUI libs for windows that most people would
sent you this link: http://go-lang.cat-v.org/library-bindings
There you can find GTK bindings and some for native windows toolkits.
Also follow "https://github.com/mattn" on github since he is the
responsible for some tookits.

--
André Moraes
http://andredevchannel.blogspot.com/

[Alvaro GP]

Sum servers + desktops + laptops. Windows wins hands down.

Note that I was talking about an officially endorsed GUI library, not a library developed by someone in his spare time because Google doesn't care.

[Alvaro GP]

On Wednesday, March 7, 2012 9:23:54 PM UTC+1, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

Google != Go.  The Go team is relatively small.

I know.

 

I agree that if a criteria for a succesful language is having a GUI
library, then Go is failing.

And that is sad.

 

 Fortunately for me, I don't use a GUI
library.

Well, that's selfish. Millions of developers use a GUI.

[Jan Mercl]

OK. What else do you demand for free? Do you really consider Google as a cost-less vendor of Windows only SW? This mailing list admittedly has "nuts" in its name, but it's qualified by "golang"...

[Alvaro GP]

On Wednesday, March 7, 2012 10:20:03 PM UTC+1, Peter Thrun wrote:

Should the core language team at Google be in the business of officially endorsing libraries for specific domains?  I am working on a Twitter API library.  Should I expect Google to endorse it?

If it is good enough and it is useful for millions of developers, probably. Google could even hire people for that, since they have so much money.

 

 It is wrong to assume that third party libraries are spare time efforts.

I believe that current GUI libraries for Go are spare time efforts.

 

Google may not prioritize how it uses its constrained resources the same as you, but that does not mean that they don't care.

Because Google is a tiny company like Borland who struggles to stay afloat, right?

 

[tux21b]

On Wednesday, March 7, 2012 10:05:37 PM UTC+1, Alro GP wrote:

Sum servers + desktops + laptops. Windows wins hands down.

+ Smartphones + TVs + DVD-Players + WLAN-Routers + etc.

It's impossible to count the Linux installations, but I think your calculation

might be already wrong for the average household.

[DisposaBoy]

There are some things which do NOT belong in the std library and I'd argue that GUI stuff is right there up at the top. Not only do I think it would stay there, be buggy and unused but I don't believe the designers of such a library would ever get it right while it add needless maintenance burden. I don't know who this Google is but last time I check Go was developed by the Go Team (regardless of whom their employer is) so I personally don't appreciate you coming here with such demanding attitude especially when you're so quick to dismiss good suggestions. You have a perfectly fine tool that's used to install out-of-tree packages some of which are developed by members of the Go Team and other committers .

[Kyle Lemons]

To say nothing of the refrigerators, toasters, ovens, microwaves, clock radios, thermostats, air conditioners, water heaters, fans, speakers, televisions, power meters, washer/dryers, etc that include small computers and no operating system at all.

[David Anderson]

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Alvaro GP <alva...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, March 7, 2012 10:20:03 PM UTC+1, Peter Thrun wrote:

Should the core language team at Google be in the business of officially endorsing libraries for specific domains?  I am working on a Twitter API library.  Should I expect Google to endorse it?

If it is good enough and it is useful for millions of developers, probably. Google could even hire people for that, since they have so much money.

You seem very keen to spend other people's money.

 

  It is wrong to assume that third party libraries are spare time efforts.

I believe that current GUI libraries for Go are spare time efforts.

Feel free to change that, either through a time or money commitment of your own. You seem to know exactly what you want, which puts you in the ideal position to scratch your itch.

 

Google may not prioritize how it uses its constrained resources the same as you, but that does not mean that they don't care.

Because Google is a tiny company like Borland who struggles to stay afloat, right?

All companies have priorities. The Go team has repeatedly stated that a GUI system is not in theirs, nor is it in anyone's best interest that they develop an API they have no personal stake in. Repeatedly insulting the people you're demanding free work of will not change this.

- Dave

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Alvaro GP <alva...@gmail.com> writes:

> Sum servers + desktops + laptops. Windows wins hands down.

When you add in phones and tablets I think the situation is less clear.

> Note that I was talking about an officially endorsed GUI library, not a
> library developed by someone in his spare time because Google doesn't care.

Go is an open source project with many contributors outside of Google.

Ian

[John Barham]

> if Google cared about the Go language then we would already have an official GUI library

Google already provides an excellent GUI library. It's called Chrome.

[Michael Jones]

Hi Alvaro,

There is a related point--very important--also to consider. Some tools
or libraries when done well are a complete solution. The sqrt()
function is like this when fast and +/- 1ULP, then that is all there
is to do for all time. And on a larger scale the math library can
aspire to perfection even if is not complete in terms of all known
functions.

But other libraries, such as graphics libraries and GUI libraries,
have a different character. One of my products when I was the director
of advanced graphics software at SGI was OpenGL. We were proud of it
and millions use it. Yet, even so, Microsoft had reasons to build
DirectX. Same with windowing and GUI toolkits. There are many
solutions, more than there are operating systems. These tools embody a
philosophy and it is the differences in philosophy that may cause a
developer to prefer one over another when two or more are available.

Because of this, and in situations like this, Google may care very
much that solutions exist but may not believe that the right answer is
a single, official answer. You see this in the encoding libraries and
the encryption libraries which have evolved over time to be more of a
framework for expressing a variety of different mechanisms. What is
"official" here is the unified Go interface for the common functions.
GUI tools and code are this on an even larger scale.

I think a better way for us (Google) to show the importance of UI
frameworks would be to wait until developers have created at least
four of them then begin to see where there could be something in
common. The ratio of the common to the unique would then determine the
degree to which a consistent Go language framework would make sense
(as in the encryption case.) The database tools are approaching this
maturity but the GUI tools lag that greatly.

Not speaking for the Go team, just a personal view.
MIchael

--
Michael T. Jones | Chief Technology Advocate  | m...@google.com |  +1
650-335-5765

[Alvaro GP]

I seem to remember that someone from the Go team said that Go isn't suited for embedded devices.

[minux]

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Alvaro GP <alva...@gmail.com> wrote:

I seem to remember that someone from the Go team said that Go isn't suited for embedded devices.

Why? I use Go on my Phone and iPad everyday.

And IMHO, mobile phones and tablets could be classified as embedded devices.

Also I plan to use Go in some of my embedded projects. The main weakness is

the Go program require more memory than their C/C++ counterparts, but I believe

that is going to improve.

[Paul Borman]

s/embedded/realtime

Any platform that works with Java should be fine for Go.

Realtime is not compatible with garbage collection (soft-realtime might be, but it is not realtime, it is marketing term) 

[Dorival Pedroso]

+1,000,000!

On Wednesday, March 7, 2012 12:48:10 PM UTC+10, Andrew Gerrand wrote:

On 7 March 2012 13:39, Hotei <hote...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Don't waste another minute on the FreeBSD port."

Whomever said this originally doesn't speak for the Go project.
FreeBSD is and will remain fully supported. We are not going to just
throw that work away because of some off hand comment on a mailing
list.

The goal is to support more platforms, not less.

Andrew

[minux]

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Paul Borman <bor...@google.com> wrote:

s/embedded/realtime

Any platform that works with Java should be fine for Go.

Realtime is not compatible with garbage collection (soft-realtime might be, but it is not realtime, it is marketing term) 

OK, this restriction sounds reasonable.

[Alvaro GP]

On Wednesday, March 7, 2012 10:50:04 PM UTC+1, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

When you add in phones and tablets I think the situation is less clear.

Of course, because Microsoft is late to the game, but we will see tablets and smartphones running Windows 8 in less than a year. Will they fail? I don't know, but I wouldn't rule them out.

[Ingo Oeser]

tl;dr: upstream vs. system integration.

On Wednesday, March 7, 2012 2:18:06 PM UTC+1, minux wrote:

Go is just different (it only depends on 2.6.x+ kernel and libc+libpthread). If you found a system where

the packaged binary doesn't work, then it is a bug, please report it.

Has been done, response was "too old". 

And I agree to the upstream developers: that is not their job, but the job ofsystem integrators.There are reasons, why those job descriptions differ. 

I do system integretion and provide fixes for stuff you will never care about, because it will hit only MY customers "million dollar/day" application, 

within a few hours, while you care about stuff more important to all users and ingenius software design.

Please just accept that there are deadlines and priorities for me, that are not yours and that they neither can nor should be.

That is the strength of open software and is really great and fine with me.

And I actually try to save you work here, not making more.

 

Providing a version for each distribution will fail because there are always distributions you didn't

know.

Not YOU have to do it, but just be responsive to people trying to port stuff. I suggest keeping the great support and prove stuff is buildable.

The Go team and community is doing a GREAT job here already and I just pointed out, you are providing stuff nobody needs on Linux and 

suggest use resources elsewhere.

 

I would go as far as claiming that binaries for Linux are even harmful because desktop users tend to try them and risk their nice 

and consistent package management with it and ask for help half a year later because sth. doesn't work.

It is installed in /usr/local, which is supposed to be just the place for 3rdparty software not managed by

package managers.

On any decently managed sytem /usr/local is sth. sysadmins work on getting rid of. 

With upstream one-size-fits-all binaries you miss:

- dependency handling

- deleting old stuff

- permission management

- extra debug symbol packages (one liner for some distros)

- auto upgrade

- deferred and checked upgrades on server farms

- IT department support for developers

- repeatable builds, even for older versions

- reactivating software, believed dead (e.g. after conquering new markets, new community, new investor)

- fixing old bugs with compiler versions you will not even remember to fullfill old contracts (e.g. extended lifetime for 5x the price deals will be done)

- ...

Please ask e.g. the Google SRE or Android team, if you don't believe me. They might tell you sth, similiar for e.g. binutils or maintaining any other product not heavily developed at Google.

Best Regards

Ingo

[Ingo Oeser]

On Wednesday, March 7, 2012 11:13:12 PM UTC+1, Paul Borman wrote:

s/embedded/realtime

Any platform that works with Java should be fine for Go.

Realtime is not compatible with garbage collection (soft-realtime might be, but it is not realtime, it is marketing term) 

GC=off and periodic, asynchronous self-exec() with atomic handovers should solve the problem :-)

/duck+run

[Bobby Powers]

what is sth?

>
> Best Regards
>
> Ingo

[dlin]

Andrew,

Could you provide a 'green package' windows port?

That means, just a .zip file which will be unpacked without administrator permission.

[Alvaro GP]

That makes sense, but I don't see how the community could come up with something better than if Google hired a team of experts. It might take years or decades or never happen.

I'm just sad to see a fine language like Go ignored by so many developers because it doesn't do GUIs. I come from a Delphi background and the first thing that people ask me when I mention Go is: Does it do GUIs? Does it have an IDE? And the best I can say is: "there is some barely working stuff out there, nothing official". Of course they don't even bother.

[dlin]

Another suggestion: please let the goplay could run on windows.(Provide an Icon for it)

That will fake user Go could just run on web browser as IDE. (JOKE)

[Alvaro GP]

Oh excuse the hell out of me for suggesting what should be done to prevent Go from becoming the next "D language", i.e. something that nobody actually uses.

[Guillermo Estrada]

I wanna say I switched from D language because the development of the
language is run by people with their own agenda. Of course they hear
the community, but 1) it didn't started as an open source language 2)
it ran with propietary (Digital Mars) tools, they later open sourced
the compiler frontend and you could use a oss linker, but still...
they began on the wrong foot. those things make the development of the
language PAINFULLY slow, I admire Walter Bright and Andrei
Alexandrescu, but I left D for Go, because perfection does not means
usability, D has every programming paradigm and they want to make
every one perfect, that means... punishing the standard library IMHO
the standar library is sometimes FAR more important then the compiler
features (demonstrated by Tango).

The golang community is FAR different than that, the language has the
strongest standard library in a compiled language I've ever seen. The
Go team does an amazing work at pulling user code and integrating it
with the language/standard library, that for me, with a reduced set of
features, makes Go a better language for me, it has a strong standard
library with even image encoders/decoders out of the box!!!! Now it
will have Database interfaces and such out of the box!!! D has an
amazing compiler and it's an amazing language, but the standard
library... well... for me that was it and for 50% of the abandoned
projects on dsource.org was too.

On the other hand... please don't flame us (every now and then Windows
developers) for some fan commentaries, I'm a linux user myself, but I
develop for windows, when I develop web apps or so I always deploy to
linux and I love it! But the truth is, whatever the % of marketshare
is this days, the Binary Packages are 10 times more important for
windows developers than it is for Linux or BSD guys, we all know it,
in Windows, binary packages are OUR LIFE (we cannot just build every
library and every dependancy from source, we do not have a package
manager with those amazing tools at hand, our console sucks, etc...).
So yeah, I agree the thing about putting effort on Windows packaging
because I always install Go on Linux from the mercurial repo, just a
matter of building and installing again, and it's lovely. On Windows
we do not have that luxury. Maybe cross compiling is the way to go for
me, but testing always requires the target platform.

On the other hand, a GUI library for windows would be amazing! (WTF is
and IDE? :P) I do think and IDE for Go is useless, given that a single
"go" command can do almost everything an IDE can, plus you can use
your favorite code editor (Sublime Text 2 for me). Even if the golang
community goes forward with developing system specific libraries, like
a Windows GUI Toolkit, I would prefer focusing our efforts in a full
fledged Android library, or even native OpenGL libraries for every
platform out of the box, etc...

Then again, thank you for listening to our prayers, for including
mercurial with the binary release, for making such a nice packaging
with such yummy binaries inside. The Linux and FreeBSD guys are right
too, but I do think that binary packages for each distribution and in
the official package repos should be done by each distribution
community. We are just lucky that Gustavo is such an amazing person
and gives us not only Ubuntu packages, but tons of useful libraries
that I use almost every day (mgo driver, Amazon AWS, etc...), Kudos to
Canonical.

My opinion is that weekly should be not tagged as weekly only but as
1.0 RC1 (maybe do a double tagging of the same version for marketing
and development purposes), it gives tons of presence to non go
developers, because even if we publicize it as RC, in the eyes of the
world is not close to stable.

Cheers,
Guillermo Estrada

[dlin]

Suggestion:  for windows version, we require a default 65001 code page console, to let program output display correctly.

[Ian Lance Taylor]

Alvaro GP <alva...@gmail.com> writes:

> On Wednesday, March 7, 2012 9:23:54 PM UTC+1, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>>
>> Fortunately for me, I don't use a GUI
>> library.
>>
> Well, that's selfish. Millions of developers use a GUI.

I'm not sure "selfish" is the right word. In any case, since I don't
use a GUI library, you should be glad that I am not trying to develop
one.

To be clear, nobody on the Go team is opposed to having a GUI library.
If Go is a good enough language for GUI development, then somebody will
write one. That's the way it works.

Ian

[Andrew Gerrand]

I think all of us, as Go users, should be grateful to Google for the
support they have given (and will continue to give) to the Go project.
It is both an honor and a privilege to work with such talented people
at Google and in the open source community on something that is of
high quality and free for anyone to use however they wish.

I think your concerns are misplaced. Go is going from strength to
strength, and it is early days yet.

Andrew

[Alvaro GP]

On Wednesday, March 7, 2012 10:22:27 PM UTC+1, Jan Mercl wrote:

OK. What else do you demand for free?

Did I demand anything?

 

Do you really consider Google as a cost-less vendor of Windows only SW?

No, they would rather spend their millions on something called Chrome OS that nobody uses. Yet, no money for a Go GUI library.

[Devon H. O'Dell]

Can we please stop feeding the blatant troll? This thread is full of eloquent and wonderful counterpoints to every point. Let's not continue it?

--dho

[Michael Jones]

Ha ha! fantastic!

--

[汪家浩]

No more agree with u.

Go is a great language,and there are million developers  on Windows. It seems Google ignore this people.

They feel sad cause they love golang, I am one of this guy,who want GUI or IDE.

And see C# on Windows,u can use it write server,GUI,web ,phone app, it's so convenient. 

If Go does so, that's the spring of us.

I post just want Google or Go team know it . DON'T IGNORE US!

[Andrew Gerrand]

On 8 March 2012 15:37, 汪家浩 <jhw...@iflytek.com> wrote:
> No more agree with u.
>
> Go is a great language,and there are million developers  on Windows. It
> seems Google ignore this people.
> They feel sad cause they love golang, I am one of this guy,who want GUI or
> IDE.
>
> And see C# on Windows,u can use it write server,GUI,web ,phone app, it's
> so convenient.
> If Go does so, that's the spring of us.
>
> I post just want Google or Go team know it . DON'T IGNORE US!

We're not ignoring you. Contrary to some opinions expressed here,
Google doesn't have infinite resources. We're doing the best we can.

Thanks,
Andrew

[Alvaro GP]

Thank God someone agrees with me.

But I think that the official position is clear. Google wanted a command line language for their servers and they have it. Work complete. End of the story.

[Andrew Gerrand]

On 8 March 2012 20:06, Alvaro GP <alva...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank God someone agrees with me.
>
> But I think that the official position is clear. Google wanted a command
> line language for their servers and they have it. Work complete. End of the
> story.

How can it be the end of the story when we're just about to release
version 1? Go is only now just entering the world, and already you're
condemning it. Such hyperbolic negativity is unnecessary and
unhelpful.

It takes time to go from a base language to a well-designed GUI. You
say you're from a Delphi background - well think about that: it took
many, many years to go from Pascal to Turbo Pascal's bgi, and longer
still to arrive at Delphi. Like Niklaus Wirth we, too, started at the
bottom. Yet I believe we're making good progress.

I'm sorry we have not progressed as far as you might like. It's a
cliche, but patience is a virtue.

Sincerely,
Andrew

[Alvaro GP]

On Thursday, March 8, 2012 10:20:13 AM UTC+1, Andrew Gerrand wrote:

It takes time to go from a base language to a well-designed GUI. You
say you're from a Delphi background - well think about that: it took
many, many years to go from Pascal to Turbo Pascal's bgi, and longer
still to arrive at Delphi. Like Niklaus Wirth we, too, started at the
bottom. Yet I believe we're making good progress.

The GUI library and the IDE in Delphi 1 were completely new, and Delphi version 1 was a complete development environment. That was possible because Borland realized the importance of a GUI, while Google doesn't even have it in the roadmap.

 

I'm sorry we have not progressed as far as you might like. It's a
cliche, but patience is a virtue.

You are progressing as far as you can, considering how underfunded the Go project is. It's too bad that Google is only worth Two Hundred Billion Dollars. If only they had a little more money... <irony off>

[minux]

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Ingo Oeser <night...@googlemail.com> wrote:

On any decently managed sytem /usr/local is sth. sysadmins work on getting rid of. 

With upstream one-size-fits-all binaries you miss:

- dependency handling

- deleting old stuff

- permission management

- extra debug symbol packages (one liner for some distros)

- auto upgrade

- deferred and checked upgrades on server farms

- IT department support for developers

- repeatable builds, even for older versions

- reactivating software, believed dead (e.g. after conquering new markets, new community, new investor)

- fixing old bugs with compiler versions you will not even remember to fullfill old contracts (e.g. extended lifetime for 5x the price deals will be done)

- ...

I guess the Go team will accept rpm spec or deb control files or Gentoo ebuilds or configs for other

distributions. If you do really care about this, you can contribute these things.

[Jan Mercl]

On Thursday, March 8, 2012 11:08:52 AM UTC+1, Alvaro GP wrote:

The GUI library and the IDE in Delphi 1 were completely new, and Delphi version 1 was a complete development environment. That was possible because Borland realized the importance of a GUI, while Google doesn't even have it in the roadmap.

You've somehow missed those 12 (sic!) years it took Borland to get from Turbo Pascal to Delphi.

(I still remember how enjoyable was programming EEG DP in TP on a 8-bit CP/M machine with an 8" floppy. Also because the better part of the compensation came in liquid form right from the doctors 8-)

[minux]

With a non (hard) realtime OS, you can't really meet hard realtime requirements.

I believe none of the supported OSes are be qualified as (hard-)RTOS.

[Henrik Johansson]

I am sorry but you are incredibly rude! Its one thing to want features but not wanting to pitch in yourself and then resorting to this behavior when people dont jump at what you say is just plain rude.

The pace with which we have received a top notch modern new language is nothing less then astonishing and the fact that it is to a large extent community driven only adds to that.

2c

[Alvaro GP]

On Thursday, March 8, 2012 11:26:50 AM UTC+1, Jan Mercl wrote:

You've somehow missed those 12 (sic!) years it took Borland to get from Turbo Pascal to Delphi.

Delphi wasn't just a revision of Turbo Pascal, everything except the compiler was new.

[Alvaro GP]

On Thursday, March 8, 2012 11:34:06 AM UTC+1, Henrik Johansson wrote:

I am sorry but you are incredibly rude! Its one thing to want features but not wanting to pitch in yourself and then resorting to this behavior when people dont jump at what you say is just plain rude.

The pace with which we have received a top notch modern new language is nothing less then astonishing and the fact that it is to a large extent community driven only adds to that.

Rude with whom? Did I ever say anything bad about the Go team? In case it isn't clear, my criticism is directed at Google the company.

[Jan Mercl]

Yes. It took Borland 12 years to create all that new stuff...

Can we now return to doing something productive or at least enjoyable?

PS: I have no professional use for Windows, so I may be misinformed, but I thought there already is some WinAPI binding somewhere out there.

----

On Thursday, March 8, 2012 11:50:07 AM UTC+1, Alvaro GP wrote:

Rude with whom? Did I ever say anything bad about the Go team? In case it isn't clear, my criticism is directed at Google the company.

The  best way to criticize a company is not to buy it's products in first place.

Oh wait, probably most of  Google's products you might be "consuming" are free, Go included.

[Volker Dobler]

On Mar 8, 11:08 am, Alvaro GP <alvar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The GUI library and the IDE in Delphi 1 were completely new, and Delphi
> version 1 was a complete development environment. That was possible because
> Borland realized the importance of a GUI, while Google doesn't even have it
> in the roadmap.

> You are progressing as far as you can, considering how underfunded the Go
> project is. It's too bad that Google is only worth Two Hundred Billion
> Dollars. If only they had a little more money... <irony off>

GUI *is* important.
GUI is so important, that lots of programs require not only a desktop
GUI
but also a web GUI! Maintaining two GUI version got cumbersome and
stuff like Eclipse RAP was invented. Currently we see a shift to
browser-
only GUIs: Why bother with an extra desktop GUI when your web GUI
is nice, fancy and offers anything anyway? (Yes, I know, there is
stuff
where a browser based GUI is inferior to a desktop GUI, but this is
stuff
where no suitable cross-platform technique has evolved jet, so lets
ignore tight desktop integration for this discussion).

Your available options for GUI are:
- Use a browser based GUI (Ext JS, GWT, just to name a few).
- Use Go's wingui (code.google.com/p/gowingui) if you earn money
from Windows platform.
- Use one of the Go bindings of cross platform GUI toolkits like
fltk, gtk, lub.
- Write your own (I'd like to see a Blender style toolkit, please
drop
me a note once your done).
- Lament about Google not listening to your (aka the most important)
concerns.
You may choose.

C++ did not fail because its lack of builtin GUI. Tools which provide
a cross-platform GUI-Toolkit (e.g. python/tcl, Java/Swing) suffer
from the non-native look&feel of their GUIs (which *is* an argument,
especially for the elder). If they support only the common subset of
UI elements the user experience suffers. The holy grail of UI
technology hasn't been found jet. And it got worse with multitouch.

Maybe Go will not become the de facto standard for building
Windows desktop applications in the next two years; but assuming
that this is necessary for a successful language might be a bit
far fetched.

One last point: Go is not a commercial product developed, marketed
and sold by Google. Google enables some really (!) clever guys to
develop Go by paying them and providing resources.

Volker

[ajstarks]

it's already there. See  $GOROOT/misc/goplay.  I use it frequently on Windows.

[Alvaro GP]

On Thursday, March 8, 2012 12:02:10 PM UTC+1, Jan Mercl wrote:

Yes. It took Borland 12 years to create all that new stuff...

No, it didn't.

 

Can we now return to doing something productive or at least enjoyable?

Sure.

 

PS: I have no professional use for Windows, so I may be misinformed, but I thought there already is some WinAPI binding somewhere out there.

Which is just as productive as programming in straight C.

[André Moraes]

> Note that I was talking about an officially endorsed GUI library,
Looks like somebody don't have the time (or skills) to solve some
problems and just want other people to do it (for free...)

> not a library developed by someone in his spare time because Google doesn't care.
Why don't you use "YOUR" spare time to make it better? In that case
"YOU" could trust on the code "YOU" wrote.

But then you say: It's a lot of work to do everything "BY MY SELF"
Then I say: Yes, that's why people release their code so others can help
But I think that coming from a Microsoft way of thinking you would
consider "free software to be a cancer" or another stupid statement
from Ballmer or Gates.

GUI's are a complex thing and if the Go-lang includes a GUI library in
the stdlib it will need to make it work fore every single platform
that is supported.

Go isn't only for Windows, unlike Borland Delphi. And everybody knows
that Kylix (Delphi for Linux) isn't even close of what Delphi was.

--
André Moraes
http://andredevchannel.blogspot.com/

[Ingo Oeser]

http://golang.cat-v.org/packages shows the state of affairs for most distributions.

Only Gentoo seems to be missing there.

Best regards

Ingo

[Alvaro GP]

On Thursday, March 8, 2012 12:12:15 PM UTC+1, Volker Dobler wrote:

 Why bother with an extra desktop GUI when your web GUI
is nice, fancy and offers anything anyway? 

Because it offers a better user experience, just like some people buy a car instead of a 4x4 truck.

 

Your available options for GUI are:
 - Use a browser based GUI (Ext JS, GWT, just to name a few).
 - Use Go's wingui (code.google.com/p/gowingui) if you earn money
   from Windows platform.
 - Use one of the Go bindings of cross platform GUI toolkits like
   fltk, gtk, lub.
 - Write your own (I'd like to see a Blender style toolkit, please
drop
   me a note once your done).
 - Lament about Google not listening to your (aka the most important)
   concerns.
You may choose.

Just so you understand it, I'm stating what I believe is required by Go to become popular, and I do it because I like the language. If Google doesn't care about GUIs or about Go getting popular, then fine, my absolutely personal opinion is that Go will never take off. It's not the end of the world. There are other languages.

 

C++ did not fail because its lack of builtin GUI.

When C++ was invented nobody used a GUI. Try that in 2012.

 

 Tools which provide
a cross-platform GUI-Toolkit (e.g. python/tcl, Java/Swing) suffer
from the non-native look&feel of their GUIs (which *is* an argument,
especially for the elder). If they support only the common subset of
UI elements the user experience suffers. The holy grail of UI
technology hasn't been found jet. And it got worse with multitouch.

Yet the Qt library is vastly better than any web interface.

 

Maybe Go will not become the de facto standard for building
Windows desktop applications in the next two years; but assuming
that this is necessary for a successful language might be a bit
far fetched.

A language is successful when it is among the most used, and that won't happen if Windows developers can't use it productively.

 

One last point: Go is not a commercial product developed, marketed
and sold by Google. Google enables some really (!) clever guys to
develop Go by paying them and providing resources.

I know. I imagine that Google might be interested in seeing Go succeed, but what do I know?

[Jan Mercl]

On Thursday, March 8, 2012 1:54:27 PM UTC+1, Alvaro GP wrote:

> A language is successful when it is among the most used, and that

> won't happen if Windows developers can't use it productively.

Your view of reality of Go success wrt having a standard Windows GUI binding, perhaps also a VS plugin, is so different from what is true at the planet I'm living on that I'm no more sure we speak the same language.

But seriously. Actually I believe the less is Go embraced by Windows developers the better it is for Go's success (I know I'm not politically correct now, sorry dev guys). Why do I think so? Because as soon Go as would become really used by Windows developers in mass, then I'm sure the same things are gonna happen as happened always before, like e.g. the Java/.net story. I mean that Microsoft in such case will start injecting platform locking "extensions" and if that is not enough, they will just release the more or less same technology under a new brand name, now firmly locked to their platform for sure via intentional incompatibilities/patent traps/roll your own... In case of Go it would be even much easier as there's no prohibitive license attached to it and actually anyone can do this at any time in a perfectly legal way, closed source or not.

No one can convince me that Microsoft is not going to behave in the same manner in similar situations as it always behaved before as soon as it's seen strategic/long-term profitable/competition erasing in Redmond.

Windows is just one of the many operating systems available, with it pros and cons as any other OS has too. So far, nothing special. But the prevailing Windows "culture"/way of thinking/Windows only point of view/..., also nicely demonstrated in this thread, that's what I see as totally unacceptable.

Please note how a nice, completely politically correct word is used to end the previous paragraph instead the one I'm actually thinking of ;-)

[Steve McCoy]

Well volunteered!

On Wednesday, March 7, 2012 4:22:20 PM UTC-5, Alvaro GP wrote:

On Wednesday, March 7, 2012 9:23:54 PM UTC+1, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

Google != Go.  The Go team is relatively small.

I know.

 

I agree that if a criteria for a succesful language is having a GUI
library, then Go is failing.

And that is sad.

[David Leimbach]

That's good to know because I can think of many uses for embedded FreeBSD + Go to be a huge winning combination.

On Wednesday, March 7, 2012 2:14:36 PM UTC-8, Dorival Pedroso wrote:

+1,000,000!

On Wednesday, March 7, 2012 12:48:10 PM UTC+10, Andrew Gerrand wrote:

On 7 March 2012 13:39, Hotei <hote...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Don't waste another minute on the FreeBSD port."

Whomever said this originally doesn't speak for the Go project.
FreeBSD is and will remain fully supported. We are not going to just
throw that work away because of some off hand comment on a mailing
list.

The goal is to support more platforms, not less.

Andrew

[ron minnich]

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Alvaro GP <alva...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fair enough. I just wish that Google placed a fair amount of their infinite
> resources on the most important platform, which happens to be Windows.

for about another year :-)

ron

[Alvaro GP]

On Thursday, March 8, 2012 2:45:19 PM UTC+1, Jan Mercl wrote:

 Actually I believe the less is Go embraced by Windows developers the better it is for Go's success (I know I'm not politically correct now, sorry dev guys).

That is SO funny. You are somehow implying that Go can succeed without Windows.

[Aram Hăvărneanu]

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Alvaro GP <alva...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That is SO funny. You are somehow implying that Go can succeed without
> Windows.

Many things are successful and don't involve Windows.

--
Aram Hăvărneanu

[Alvaro GP]

On Thursday, March 8, 2012 6:57:14 PM UTC+1, Aram Hăvărneanu wrote:

Many things are successful and don't involve Windows.

And Go isn't one of those.

 

[Andy Balholm]

Go has succeeded without full Windows GUI support. The team has accomplished what they set out to do—produce a great programming language for writing servers. Succeeding in other fields will require more library support (but not necessarily in the standard library).

[chris dollin]

Whether it will or it won't, sniping at each other for one's
preferences in and opinions about preferred operating
systems IS NOT HELPING, however cathartic it may be.

Supposing that Google doesn't suddenly produce a Go Gui
project, and further supposing that that doesn't make us all
wimp out of Go and take up knitting instead, what could be
done or done differently to make things better?

Chris

--
Chris "allusive" Dollin

[David Leimbach]

I remember when this thread was about Go Binary distributions.  Woohoo!  

[Jamu Kakar]

Hi,

In case you're using GMail and you're not familiar with the "mute"
feature this is a great opportunity to try it out! If you have
keyboard shortcuts enabled you can hit 'm' or you can find the 'Mute'
entry in the 'More' menu.

/me follows his own advice

Thanks,
J.

[Alvaro GP]

On Thursday, March 8, 2012 7:15:09 PM UTC+1, AndyBalholm wrote:

Go has succeeded without full Windows GUI support. The team has accomplished what they set out to do—produce a great programming language for writing servers.

Succeeded in that particular thing, yes. Succeeded in the general sense, no.

 

Succeeding in other fields will require more library support (but not necessarily in the standard library).

Agreed.