| |||||||||||||
Ah, Google GoAh, Google GoPosted Jun 5, 2011 11:23 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: Object-oriented design patterns in the kernel, part 1 by cmccabe Parent article: Object-oriented design patterns in the kernel, part 1
Well, the Google Go structural subtyping is crippled and limited version of ages old idiom. Of course it does not mean Google Go is bad language: it's version is simpler and less flexible - but as consequence it's less dangerous too. But still... it's funny how people are becoming excited when fashionable language presets something from languge veteran they forever disliked for some reason.
(Log in to post comments)
Ah, Google Go Posted Jun 16, 2011 0:15 UTC (Thu) by cmccabe (subscriber, #60281) [Link]
There have been a lot of dynamically typed languages in recent years that have implemented what's called "duck typing." Python and Ruby come to mind, but I'm sure there are others. What is different about Google Go is that it is statically typed. Common Lisp is dynamically typed.
|
|||||||||||||