Subj : Google's Go language
To   : art
From : Nightfox
Date : Sun Apr 01 2012 02:53 pm

  Re: Google's Go language
  By: art to Nightfox on Sun Oct 16 2011 14:16:02

 > Aye, another big factor for myself, is consistency--i.e,. is the standard
 > library conceptually consistent.

I agree there.  I find that a language is easier to work with if its library is
consistent.  I think C++'s STL library is a good example, as many of the
container classes have the same function names for appending elements, and the
iterator behavior is consistent across the container classes.  More recently
I've been working a little bit with Java at work, and its library of container
classes don't seem to be as consistent, so I find myself having to look up the
documentation more often, which I think kills productivity a bit.

 > Although I do agree with what you've said, I have run into several
 > languages that really seem to be fit for very specific purposes, or, at
 > least, not fit for specific purposes...

That's true..  It seems that programming languages can be optimized for
specific purposes, and when that happens, they work really well for those
things, but they'll still be average at best for other tasks.  I think Perl is
one such langauge - Perl is really good at automating text processing and can
be used for other things too, but I think it really shines at text processing.

Nightfox

---/ desafortunadamente :: fortune cookie /---
"What the devil am I doing here?"
"Sounds like our captain."
  -- Picard and Riker in ST:TNG "Lonely Among Us"

---
 þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

.