What's about CSP (channels/goroutines), static duck typing (Go interfaces) and a very practical standard library?
I had taken a look at Oberon back in 1999 and found it so much worse than Delphi for writing real programs. (which was a precursor of C#/Windows Forms, not Go).
> What's about CSP (channels/goroutines), static duck typing (Go interfaces) and a very practical standard library?
CSP and static duck typing belong to the missing 10% I noted.
Still there are available in other languages that also support native code generation with modules.
> I had taken a look at Oberon back in 1999 and found it so much worse than Delphi for writing real programs. (which was a precursor of C#/Windows Forms, not Go).
Go method definitions are taken from Component Pascal, an extension to Oberon.
Actually I find Delphi much more powerful than Go for large scale development in the enterprise world.
Paulo, I'm very sorry if my question looks a bit rude. The only goal I had is to understand if your opinion is theoretical or based on the real experience.
I don't share your opinion on Go syntax, although, I like Pascal family much more than C and had been using Pascal/Delphi almost exclusively for all my projects until 2003. After that, Delphi became too outdated and I had to switch to other languages.
Also, as I have said before, my knowledge about Oberon and Component Pascal is theoretical, so it might be that you're actually right. Given that these languages are effectively dead (by github criteria: it does not recognize Oberon or Component Pascal, but supports DCPU16 assembly), I don't have a chance to improve this situation (any program written on dead language is theoretical, because it would not be used in prod)
I did contribute the initial version of the os.user package for Windows, which was then picked up by the core team. Also started to add Windows to the exp.gui/draw packages, but gave up on them when they were dropped from Go 1.
I find github criteria a bad one, as many people I know don't even care about it.
I still lurk in the Go mailing list as a language geek, but lost interest, as the language feels too minimalist to my taste, given my experience with other languages.
In a way I belong to the group Rob recently described as C++ programmers. Given my experience in language design, using Go makes me feel I am back in high school with Turbo Pascal 6.0.
But Google's weight might nevertheless help Go become mainstream, who knows.
I had taken a look at Oberon back in 1999 and found it so much worse than Delphi for writing real programs. (which was a precursor of C#/Windows Forms, not Go).