HN Explorer

18 comments

[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 49.8 ms ] thread
xushiweizh
* For engineering: working in the simplest language that can be mastered by children

* For STEM education: studying an engineering language that can be used to work in the future

* For data science: communicating with engineers in the same language

jstx1
It's very hard to compete with the momentum Python has on each of these points.
xushiweizh
Python is a script, not a static typed language.
[deleted]
(comment deleted)
dx034
I like the idea. I use Go a lot but always go back to Python for quick scripting (often in Jupyter Notebooks). If it works like advertised, it could be really interesting!
xvilka
Missed opportunity to call it Go++.
artificial
They address it in the readme: “We will keep Go+ simple. This is why we call it Go+, not Go++.”
mborch
Same audience as https://julialang.org/ it would seem.
xushiweizh
Julia is dynamically typed, while Go+ is static typed.
pjmlp
For most people on that target audience, Julia's type system is an advantage, plus there are type annotations.
Fire-Dragon-DoL
A list comprehension seems way more complicated for a child than a for loop. And even for a professional developer, one hides a lot of steps, the other one lists all of them
xushiweizh
Agree. And there is spx - A Go+ 2D Game Engine for STEM education - https://github.com/goplus/spx
Fire-Dragon-DoL
My comment was a bit incomplete, my point is "I'm not sure specifying the type is more complex than a list comprehension". Almost like the language is focusing on "complex visually" rather than focusing on making the features of the language simple