Google releases new programing language.

[Andrew Reilly]

On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:32:40 +0100, Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote:

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.

Don't forget command line argument obfuscation. That seems to be very
important. That, and include paths. Impenetrable.

Cheers,

--
Andrew

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2009-11-16, -jg <jim.granville@gmail.com> 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?

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.

is go so badly broken that it doesn't use the "#line" preprocessor
directive to enable source level debugging? or are you making shit up?

 

[Bob Larter]

David Brown wrote:

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.

If you check the doc's, they mention that the GCC frontend generates C
code, which is all you get for debugging.

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

 

[David Brown]

Bob Larter wrote:

David Brown wrote:
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.

If you check the doc's, they mention that the GCC frontend generates C
code, which is all you get for debugging.

I haven't read the docs, so I'll take your word for it. But if that's
the case, then it is not a gcc frontend - it's a pre-processor
generating C as an intermediary language. That's fair enough - there
are several compiler tools that do that, and it's a quick way to make a
fairly portable tool. But the terminology they have used on the website
is at best misleading.

 

[Sylvia Else]

Andrew Reilly wrote:

Don't forget the multiple result mechanism:

Of course not. It's a nice symmetry. Previously one could only get
confused about the order the parameters. Now scope for confusion about
the order of results has been added.

Sylvia.