[ajross]

> The tradeoff Go made is that certain code just cannot be written in it.

Uh... yeah? That's true of basically all platforms, and anyone who says otherwise is selling something.

> it gets painful once you leave that path

Still less painful than being zero-day'd by a supply chain attack.

[jjav]

> > The tradeoff Go made is that certain code just cannot be written in it.

> Uh... yeah? That's true of basically all platforms, and anyone who says otherwise is selling something.

What code can you not write in C?

Might be painful for some(many) cases, but there is nothing you can't write in C.

[pjmlp]

SIMD code.

And if you are going to point out compiler extensions, they are extensions exactly because ISO C cannot do it.

[ajross]

> What code can you not write in C?

This falls under the "selling somthing" angle I mentioned. Yes yes yes, generality and abstraction are tradeoffs and higher level platforms lack primitives for things the lower levels can do.

That is, at best, a ridiculous and specious way to interpret the upthread argument (again c.f. "selling something").

The actual point is that all real systems involve tradeoffs, and one of the core ones for a programming language is "what problems are best solved in this language?". That's not the same question as "what problems CAN be solved in this language", and trying to conflate the two tells me (again) that you're selling something. The applicability of C to problem areas it "can" solve has its own tradeoffs, obviously.

[afiori]

not really in-topic but constant-time crypto primitives are considered hard for any compiled language with a lot of optimizations