The long goodbye to C

esr.ibiblio.org

3 points·ingve··5 comments

> It was after this that I began to feature what I called “the harsh lesson of Perl” in my talks – that is, any new language that ships without a full POSIX binding semantically equivalent to C’s will fail.

I'm not familiar with those talks, but it seems to me that Perl has at least as "full" of a POSIX binding as Python. Is he saying that Perl failed because of this? Or succeeded?

Sure, there are some POSIX things you can't do out of the box with Perl: threads are weird (and they are in Python too, just in different ways), and some stdlib functions aren't made available without libraries (e.g. IPC functions), but that's similar to Python's choices of what to expose as well.

https://metacpan.org/pod/distribution/perl/ext/POSIX/lib/POS...

This is a dupe to the already full fledged discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15670423

Is Go really comparable to C?

No, especially with its insistence on static linking everything and the kitchen sink.

Performance wise? somewhat, https://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/compare.php?la...

Moreover, it depends on what type of program you want. If you are in low-level embedded/kernel/driver region if you can't use ASM then use C, at max go to C++. For high-level web servers, no to C.

Basically, both languages are totally different universes. "you can't judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com