I said "coherent" not "identical". They could be coherent on shared features, such as type specifications or variable declarations, which have little to do with the "class" of the language. They're not.
I don't see any reason why the syntax of a systems language couldn't be the same as the syntax of a web language. They can have different libraries available to them for example but syntax doesn't have to be different.
One of the design goals: "Ensure that Dart delivers high performance on all modern web browsers and environments ranging from small handheld devices to server-side execution."
One has pointers and no security model and produces binary processor-dependent artifacts, the other has to support untrusted code, mobile code that runs on any device.
Go allows you to take the address of any value. You just can't do pointer arithmetic like you can in C. That is, you can't address uninitialized memory.
Go doesn't define "lvalues," in the spec, but it does define "addressability." My comment would be more accurate if I had said "Go lets you take the address of any value in memory." (stack or heap)
If they had taken Javascript (or if you prefer a more coffee-script like syntax) and added Go's best features: interfaces-as-duck-typing, channels as fundamental types, string iteration over runes rather than bytes then they would have had a nice little language.
The only thing I like is underscore for private variables. Go does the opposite (which I think is a safer approach): anything you want public has to start with a capital. It really works—it is both easy to do and easy to read.
Systems language and web language are not just a different name for the same thing --like Voiture and Car.
And, no, that their function defined in abstract and in totally generic terms is the same, doesn't make them the same thing.
"move data from point A to point B" can be said for any programming language. As such, it's not particularly enlightening when comparing a language's suitability to a specific task.
Turing-completeness aside, your argument misses the point that a particular language's design, compiler, library, toolset, (heck, even a particular language's community) can make it better suited for system programming or for web programming or for some other field.
Avion: transport des personnes du point A au point B
Boot: Menschen bewegen von Punkt A nach Punkt B
We are talking past each other :) Here is your first comment interpreted through your second one. There is no reason to have different languages, but it's OK to have different jargon.
I might not get the joke. Do you mean this ironically?
There sure is reason to have different programming languages, and it's called specialization (see: necessary engineering compromises).
My first comment says: two objects having the same generic functionality, does not mean that one and the same object can implement their specific (non generic) functionalities.
My second comment says: the same thing, basically.