Google releases new programing language.

[David Segall]

David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:

malcolm wrote:
On Nov 13, 11:29 am, son of a bitch <bitchin_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Great, there seems to be world wide shortage of
Computer Programming Languages.



But kinda just looks like Microsoft + Borland + C + Pascal + Perl

Yes, which could make it a good teaching tool ?

Anyone tried the IDE ? (it does have one, right?)


It's a *programming language*. Why would a programming language have an
IDE?

Where have you been? I think an Integrated Development Environment is
now essential for system development in any language. The poster is
right to expect one or more that supports Go. It is difficult to list
the features that you should expect from an IDE without knowing the
programming language but Sun have a (Java oriented) list of features
to look for in an IDE here -
<http://java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/tools/intro.html>.

Perhaps what you are trying to ask is whether there are syntax
highlighting setups available for commonly used IDEs such as Eclipse,
KDevelope, (x)emacs, etc.

And maybe you are also asking about the state of the debugger - does it
have one, is it based on gdb, or does it "speak" gdb and can thus be
used with existing gdb front-ends?


I don't know the answer to either of these, but it helps to ask the
right questions.

He asked one of the right questions. Most text editors can do syntax
highlighting. Using a separate front end to gdb is hardly
"integrated".

 

[David Brown]

David Segall wrote:

David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:

malcolm wrote:
On Nov 13, 11:29 am, son of a bitch <bitchin_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Great, there seems to be world wide shortage of
Computer Programming Languages.


But kinda just looks like Microsoft + Borland + C + Pascal + Perl
Yes, which could make it a good teaching tool ?

Anyone tried the IDE ? (it does have one, right?)

It's a *programming language*. Why would a programming language have an
IDE?

Where have you been? I think an Integrated Development Environment is
now essential for system development in any language. The poster is

It's a matter of choice. I use a dozen different C compilers with
almost as many target processors, plus several other programming
languages. The last thing I need with a new compiler or new language is
a new IDE to go with it.

There are three ways to work when programming:

1) You can use an IDE that came with your compiler + tools
2) You can use a generic IDE with whatever compiler and tools you want
3) You can use a simpler editor with command line tools

Using a compiler/toolchain specific IDE is fine if you do most of your
work using it, or if it has a great deal of added value (such as a
graphics design system for guis, or RAD tools, or whatever). It's also
great if you want a simple "all-in-one" system and don't want to think
about your tools. But typically, these IDEs are limited and inflexible,
and every one is different - making your job a lot harder if you work
with more than one toolchain or language.

Generic IDEs like Eclipse are a better choice for many uses. You get a
powerful editor, project management, source code versioning control,
build management, debugging, etc. Language-specific syntax
highlighting, refactoring, etc., is done by plugins or syntax
highlighting files. If your development process fits standard models
neatly, you can use built-in build management, otherwise the IDE will
call external "make" tools.

Some people (including me) prefer a simpler editor and use command-line
tools such as explicitly running "make" commands. I find that gives me
the fastest and most flexible development process, and gives me a fairly
consistent environment for my different toolchains.

No sane toolchain vendor would make a new IDE unless they have very
specific requirements, or overwhelmingly many special features. In
commercial toolchain development, the trend is towards Eclipse for new
IDEs - many vendors are even dropping their existing IDEs and moving to
Eclipse in newer versions. You can expect that sooner or later an
Eclipse plugin for "go" will turn up, as well as an emacs mode and, if
the language becomes popular, plugins and syntax highlighter files for
other common IDEs and editors.

right to expect one or more that supports Go. It is difficult to list
the features that you should expect from an IDE without knowing the
programming language but Sun have a (Java oriented) list of features
to look for in an IDE here -
http://java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/tools/intro.html>.

A few of these features are programming language specific, but most are
very general - and are providing by generic IDEs.

I am not saying you should not use, or want to use, an IDE for "go".
I'm just saying that you should not expect a compiler toolchain vendor
to provide a specific IDE - it is far from necessary for using the
language, and would be a big waste of effort.

Perhaps what you are trying to ask is whether there are syntax
highlighting setups available for commonly used IDEs such as Eclipse,
KDevelope, (x)emacs, etc.

And maybe you are also asking about the state of the debugger - does it
have one, is it based on gdb, or does it "speak" gdb and can thus be
used with existing gdb front-ends?

I don't know the answer to either of these, but it helps to ask the
right questions.

He asked one of the right questions. Most text editors can do syntax
highlighting. Using a separate front end to gdb is hardly
"integrated".

 

[Antoon]

"David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> schreef in bericht
news:2qOdndYsI8cL8WHXnZ2dnUVZ8gqdnZ2d@lyse.net...

Don McKenzie wrote:

Google releases new programing language.
http://golang.org/

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/infoworld/20091110/tc_infoworld/99864

and for your viewing pleasure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKnDgT73v8s
a one hour youtube video!


This is comp.arch.embedded - where's the compilers for non-x86 targets?
I suppose that gccgo could be re-targeted, if the run-time library is
not too difficult to port.

From a very quick glance, it looks like some good points:

Source in utf-8 with utf-8 support throughout (not a big deal for
embedded systems, but great for "big" systems);

The deifference between a Public function and a private function is
determined by the first character of the name. But when using UTF-8
how does it tell the difference for say Japanese names?


Antoon

 

[-jg]

IDE can mean two things.
Integrated Development environment, and Integrated Debug Environment -
many use the former to mean 'an editor'.

A syntax highlighting editor, is a very small amount of work, and the
language should be able to be added to most good editors, quite
easily.

However, good DEBUG is very different, and if someone wants a NEW
language to take off, it had BETTER be easy to get up to speed on.
Simple really.

Good debug is rather hard to simply bolt-on-later.

Look around at some of the smarter systems out there :

Microsoft have free tools, with very good (seamless)integration of key
parts
* Syntax editor
* Data inspector, including find declaration
* Variable watch
* Breakpoints

Same with Lazarus - A wide choice of languages, all
with usable systems. (not stone soup)

Data inspection and variable watch, are rather tightly linked to the
language definition, and the compiler and object files itself.

So, that task really needs to be done by whoever wants the language
to be widely used - if you want it done quickly, and right.

Sure, start with something that already works on another language,
but there are enough new features in Go, that a lot of detail work is
needed.

Of course, if their only target is the depths of research labs, and
those happy with the command line....

-jg

 

[krel]

David Brown wrote:

Perhaps what you are trying to ask is whether there are syntax
highlighting setups available for commonly used IDEs such as Eclipse,
KDevelope, (x)emacs, etc.
And maybe you are also asking about the state of the debugger - does
it have one, is it based on gdb, or does it "speak" gdb and can thus
be used with existing gdb front-ends?

If you download the Go source code you can already find syntax
highlighting scripts for vim, emacs and xcode in the /misc directory.

 

[terryc]

On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:13:03 +0100, David Brown wrote:

It's a matter of choice. I use a dozen different C compilers with
almost as many target processors, plus several other programming
languages. The last thing I need with a new compiler or new language is
a new IDE to go with it.

What do you mean by and IDE, aka what functions does it need to have?
Several editors do bracket matching, keyword highlighting, etc.
Is that enough?>

 

[terryc]

On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:32:56 +0800, Bruce Varley wrote:

http://www.dontronics.com/webcam No More Damn Spam:

< Counted today and 10 spam in inbox and 26,768 told where to go.>

Anyway,

Does anyone remember "The Last One", new programming language that was
going to be the absolute ultimate.

Nope, not sure which one you are talking about, but I did purchase
Borland's turbo pascal and turbo C as my last two IDEs. Not counting the
visual C and viscual c++ that some one gave me to assist their efforts.

 

[René König]

If you look at Go, you should look at Go! as well:
http://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=9&colspec=ID

 

[Mark Harriss]

terryc wrote:

On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:32:56 +0800, Bruce Varley wrote:


http://www.dontronics.com/webcam No More Damn Spam:

Counted today and 10 spam in inbox and 26,768 told where to go.

Anyway,
Does anyone remember "The Last One", new programming language that was
going to be the absolute ultimate.

Nope, not sure which one you are talking about, but I did purchase
Borland's turbo pascal and turbo C as my last two IDEs. Not counting the
visual C and viscual c++ that some one gave me to assist their efforts.

Protel Autotrax was written in Turbo Pascal or C or a combination of
both IIRC.

 

[David Segall]

David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:

David Segall wrote:
David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:

malcolm wrote:
On Nov 13, 11:29 am, son of a bitch <bitchin_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Anyone tried the IDE ? (it does have one, right?)

It's a *programming language*. Why would a programming language have an
IDE?

Where have you been? I think an Integrated Development Environment is
now essential for system development in any language. The poster is

It's a matter of choice.

Agreed. I responded to your post only because I thought your sentence
below implied that the poster asked the "wrong" question and I happen
to prefer the posters choice to yours.

I don't know the answer to either of these, but it helps to ask the
right questions.

He asked one of the right questions. Most text editors can do syntax
highlighting. Using a separate front end to gdb is hardly
"integrated".

 

[Bob Larter]

Grant Edwards wrote:

On 2009-11-12, Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

When it comes to semantics rather than looks, it still doesn't
seem all that similar to Python.
[...]

One big difference between Python and Go that I forgto to
mention is that go is statically typed while Python is
dynamically typed. That's a pretty fundamental difference.

I use Python every day, and I really don't see where the
comparison to Python comes from. To me it looks more like
cleaned up Java or C with garbage collection.

That's my take on it too. What really impressed me was the great
concurrency stuff.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Bob Larter]

David Brown wrote:

Don McKenzie wrote:

Google releases new programing language.
http://golang.org/

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/infoworld/20091110/tc_infoworld/99864

and for your viewing pleasure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKnDgT73v8s
a one hour youtube video!


This is comp.arch.embedded - where's the compilers for non-x86 targets?

It supports ARM as well as x86.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[-jg]

On Nov 14, 10:47 pm, René König <r...@tbkoenig.de> wrote:

If you look at Go, you should look at Go! as well:http://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=9&colspec=ID

Oh Dear, OOps....!

Guess they did not use the Google search engine, did they!! Red faces
all round.

So, Sounds like 'Goo', or 'Goog', or 'ogle' might have to be 'new
name' candidates - or they could simply throw some money at the
problem...., but that would not go
down as well with their target.

-jg

 

[David Brown]

Bob Larter wrote:

David Brown wrote:
Don McKenzie wrote:

Google releases new programing language.
http://golang.org/

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/infoworld/20091110/tc_infoworld/99864

and for your viewing pleasure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKnDgT73v8s
a one hour youtube video!


This is comp.arch.embedded - where's the compilers for non-x86 targets?

It supports ARM as well as x86.

I noticed that as a minor point deeper inside the documentation - the
front pages don't mention it.

Obviously Google have worked on compilers targeting the cpus they are
interested in. But if it is going to be of interest to
comp.arch.embedded, it there must be compilers targeting the cpus /we/
are interested in. x86 and amd64 barely register here, and pure ARM is
not much better. If and when there are ports for ARM Thumb, Cortex,
PPC, Coldfire, MIPs, AVR, 8051, msp430, etc., etc., then c.a.e. can get
excited.

 

[David Brown]

Antoon wrote:

"David Brown" <david.brown@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> schreef in bericht
news:2qOdndYsI8cL8WHXnZ2dnUVZ8gqdnZ2d@lyse.net...
Don McKenzie wrote:
Google releases new programing language.
http://golang.org/

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/infoworld/20091110/tc_infoworld/99864

and for your viewing pleasure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKnDgT73v8s
a one hour youtube video!

This is comp.arch.embedded - where's the compilers for non-x86 targets?
I suppose that gccgo could be re-targeted, if the run-time library is
not too difficult to port.

From a very quick glance, it looks like some good points:

Source in utf-8 with utf-8 support throughout (not a big deal for
embedded systems, but great for "big" systems);


The deifference between a Public function and a private function is
determined by the first character of the name. But when using UTF-8
how does it tell the difference for say Japanese names?

You'd have to ask someone who wants to program with Japanese function names.

I don't really see much benefit from being able to use non-ASCII
characters in function or variable names. But then, I program in
English (and even if I occasionally use Norwegian words in names, it's
easy to transliterate for programming purposes). Where I do see utf-8
as potentially useful is in strings, and possibly in comments and inline
source code documentation.

I'm not a fan of having something as small as the capitalization of a
name affecting something as important as the visibility of a function.

 

[David Brown]

David Segall wrote:

David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:

David Segall wrote:
David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> wrote:

malcolm wrote:
On Nov 13, 11:29 am, son of a bitch <bitchin_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Anyone tried the IDE ? (it does have one, right?)

It's a *programming language*. Why would a programming language have an
IDE?
Where have you been? I think an Integrated Development Environment is
now essential for system development in any language. The poster is
It's a matter of choice.

Agreed. I responded to your post only because I thought your sentence
below implied that the poster asked the "wrong" question and I happen
to prefer the posters choice to yours.

You are being overly polite - I didn't /imply/ that he asked the wrong
questions, I /said/ he asked the wrong questions! But on reading my own
post, it was unreasonable of me to word it that strongly - rather, I
should have said he could have asked /better/ questions, that are more
likely to have positive answers and that discuss tools that are more
useful to the language's target audience.

I don't know the answer to either of these, but it helps to ask the
right questions.
He asked one of the right questions. Most text editors can do syntax
highlighting. Using a separate front end to gdb is hardly
"integrated".

 

[Grant Edwards]

On 2009-11-15, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.removethisbit.no> wrote:

Bob Larter wrote:
David Brown wrote:
Don McKenzie wrote:

Google releases new programing language.
http://golang.org/

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/infoworld/20091110/tc_infoworld/99864

and for your viewing pleasure:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKnDgT73v8s
a one hour youtube video!


This is comp.arch.embedded - where's the compilers for non-x86 targets?

It supports ARM as well as x86.


I noticed that as a minor point deeper inside the documentation - the
front pages don't mention it.

Obviously Google have worked on compilers targeting the cpus
they are interested in. But if it is going to be of interest
to comp.arch.embedded, it there must be compilers targeting
the cpus /we/ are interested in. x86 and amd64 barely
register here, and pure ARM is not much better. If and when
there are ports for ARM Thumb, Cortex, PPC, Coldfire, MIPs,
AVR, 8051, msp430, etc., etc., then c.a.e. can get excited.

There's a gcc frontend for Go, so doesn't that cover Cortex,
ARM Thumb, PPC, Coldfire, MIPS, AVR, SPARC, IBM z-series, H8,
SH, MSP430, and so on?

--
Grant

 

[Boudewijn Dijkstra]

Op Sat, 14 Nov 2009 00:26:04 +0100 schreef terryc
<newsninespam-spam@woa.com.au>:

On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:13:03 +0100, David Brown wrote:

It's a matter of choice. I use a dozen different C compilers with
almost as many target processors, plus several other programming
languages. The last thing I need with a new compiler or new language is
a new IDE to go with it.

What do you mean by and IDE, aka what functions does it need to have?
Several editors do bracket matching, keyword highlighting, etc.
Is that enough?

You're talking about editor features. An IDE provides (or should provide)
project management, toolchain calling and debug support as well.


--
Gemaakt met Opera's revolutionaire e-mailprogramma:
http://www.opera.com/mail/
(remove the obvious prefix to reply by mail)

 

[David Brown]

-jg wrote:

On Nov 16, 9:36 am, Grant Edwards <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
There's a gcc frontend for Go, so doesn't that cover Cortex,
ARM Thumb, PPC, Coldfire, MIPS, AVR, SPARC, IBM z-series, H8,
SH, MSP430, and so on?

The gcc front end is certainly a good start. gcc has numerous
front-ends (C, C++, Fortran, Ada, Objective C, and various other
out-of-tree languages), a middle-end, and a range of back-ends
(something like 30+ in-treee). However, gcc is not nearly as modular as
it appears - there are interconnections between front-end parts and
back-end parts that mess things up. In particular, you can't just take
the "go" front-end and configure and compile for the AVR back-end - it's
quite possible that the "go" front-end makes demands of the back-end,
such as insisting on it being 32-bit. As another example, avr-gcc is
missing some features in its C++ support (though some would say that
having only limited RTTI and exceptions support is a good thing...),
partly because of missing front-end, back-end interaction.

Even when minimal requirements are met, there is then the quality of the
code. Again as an easy example, the avr backend can generate quite
reasonable 32-bit code - but if the front-end language insists on using
32-bit all the time, the final generated avr code will be terrible even
if it is technically correct.

Then there are the libraries - although I believe that much of the "go"
libraries is written in C, there are still porting issues.

So a gcc front-end for "go" is a big step towards portability, but there
are still more steps ahead.

Depends what you mean by 'cover'.
If that means can create 'hello world', yes, but the serious weakness
of a hop that includes gcc, is the debug info no longer reaches back
to the users source code.
Any polished debug environment needs source level Step, and full
variable watch, in the native structures.

I think this is a bit mixed up. Having a gcc front-end means that you
/can/ get debug information all the way through. I believe you are
thinking of a a C pre-processor (like "cfront") that generates C code
and is then compiled. If that were the case, using C as an intermediary
language, then most debug information is typically lost.

Of course, having a gcc front-end does not guarantee that you do get
good debug information - it depends on the quality of the debug
information generated by the gcc "go" front-end, on how well that fits
with gdb (or other elf debuggers), and how well the actual debugger
software works.

 

[-jg]

On Nov 16, 9:36 am, Grant Edwards <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

There's a gcc frontend for Go, so doesn't that cover Cortex,
ARM Thumb, PPC, Coldfire, MIPS, AVR, SPARC, IBM z-series, H8,
SH, MSP430, and so on?

Depends what you mean by 'cover'.
If that means can create 'hello world', yes, but the serious weakness
of a hop that includes gcc, is the debug info no longer reaches back
to the users source code.
Any polished debug environment needs source level Step, and full
variable watch, in the native structures.

-jg