[Retr0id]

I don't really "get" the sweet-spot being targeted here. You don't get channels, goroutines, or gc, so aside from syntax and spatial memory safety you're not really inheriting much from Go. There is also no pathway to integrate with existing Go libraries.

Spatial memory safety is nice but it's the temporal safety that worries me most, in nontrivial C codebases.

[tidwall]

Looks to me like having the ability to write Go syntax and interop directly with C is the plus.

[Retr0id]

I do like Go's syntax but I can't help thinking the best language for C interop is C.

[AdieuToLogic]

> I do like Go's syntax but I can't help thinking the best language for C interop is C.

SWIG[0] is a viable option for incorporating C code as well.

0 - https://swig.org/Doc4.4/Go.html#Go

[stevekemp]

I love how SWIG is still around! I first used it about 30 years ago to integrate with Perl, then later with Java.

[teleforce]

>having the ability to write Go syntax and interop directly with C is the plus.

It's always a plus to interop with the lingua franca of programming languages.

I think D language approach is more organic and intuitive that you can interop directly, and now that it's natively supported by the D compiler make it even better [1],[2].

[1] Interfacing to C:

https://dlang.org/spec/interfaceToC.html

[2] Adding ANSI C11 C compiler to D so it can import and compile C files directly (105 comments)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27102584

[whateveracct]

Go's syntax is basically C tho lol

what's the benefit? for loops?

[nagaiaida]

if you're forgoing go features to get c interop anyway, why not just roll back to whatever go version gccgo supports at that point?

[xerox13ster]

This is actually perfect for me.

Go is my most productive language, but it is the worst for some of the usecases I want to use it for due to goroutines and GC pauses and things like that.

I learned C and programming when I was a middle school math nerd and so my understanding of functions was colored by the algebraic definition of a single value function. This led to me writing my code in a more functional paradigm than an object oriented paradigm. I struggled to learn Java. I struggled in programming class when we made the switch from VB6 to vb.net because I didn’t really understand object oriented programming.

I find go’s procedural nature to be the best language for my understanding of programming with functions. The way the object oriented code is possible, but not required allows me to build types and objects that I can compose and use as I understand them, not the way that object oriented, inheritance, and polymorphism requires me to subclass.

I recently have had the idea for a project and I found the perfect ECS library that would allow me to compose my entities and components the way I do in Go, but it does not interface cleanly with Cgo either in runtime overhead or development overhead.

The official bindings for it are rust, c, c#, zig, lua, and clojure.

This would allow me to use it by writing Go code that calls it natively like C.

I’m not concerned about not getting to use Go libraries. I believe in Roll Your Own and always had to roll my own when I was learning C. Go’s stdlib is tight and lends itself to RYO really well.

[cocodill]

I guess there is no point except Anton is having fun do it.