<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_11_11_0210212</id>
	<title>Go, Google's New Open Source Programming Language</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1257960060000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Many readers are sending in the news about <a href="http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/11/go-new-open-source-programming-language-from-google.ars">Go, the new programming language Google has released</a> as open source under a BSD license. The <a href="http://golang.org/">official Go site</a> characterizes the language as simple, fast, safe, concurrent, and fun. A <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwoWei-GAPo">video</a> illustrates just how fast compilation is: the entire language, 120K lines, compiles in under 10 sec. on a laptop. Ars Technica's writeup lays the stress on how C-like Go is in its roots, though it has plenty of modern ideas mixed in:
<i>"For example, there is a shorthand syntax for variable assignment that supports simple type inference. It also has anonymous function syntax that lets you use real closures. There are some Python-like features too, including array slices and a map type with constructor syntax that looks like Python's dictionary concept. ... One of the distinguishing characteristics of Go is its unusual type system. It eschews some typical object-oriented programming concepts such as inheritance. You can define struct types and then create methods for operating on them. You can also define interfaces, much like you can in Java. In Go, however, you don't manually specify which interface a class implements.  ... Parallelism is emphasized in Go's design. The language introduces the concept of 'goroutines' which are executed concurrently. ... The language provides a 'channel' mechanism that can be used to safely pass data in and out of goroutines."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Many readers are sending in the news about Go , the new programming language Google has released as open source under a BSD license .
The official Go site characterizes the language as simple , fast , safe , concurrent , and fun .
A video illustrates just how fast compilation is : the entire language , 120K lines , compiles in under 10 sec .
on a laptop .
Ars Technica 's writeup lays the stress on how C-like Go is in its roots , though it has plenty of modern ideas mixed in : " For example , there is a shorthand syntax for variable assignment that supports simple type inference .
It also has anonymous function syntax that lets you use real closures .
There are some Python-like features too , including array slices and a map type with constructor syntax that looks like Python 's dictionary concept .
... One of the distinguishing characteristics of Go is its unusual type system .
It eschews some typical object-oriented programming concepts such as inheritance .
You can define struct types and then create methods for operating on them .
You can also define interfaces , much like you can in Java .
In Go , however , you do n't manually specify which interface a class implements .
... Parallelism is emphasized in Go 's design .
The language introduces the concept of 'goroutines ' which are executed concurrently .
... The language provides a 'channel ' mechanism that can be used to safely pass data in and out of goroutines .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many readers are sending in the news about Go, the new programming language Google has released as open source under a BSD license.
The official Go site characterizes the language as simple, fast, safe, concurrent, and fun.
A video illustrates just how fast compilation is: the entire language, 120K lines, compiles in under 10 sec.
on a laptop.
Ars Technica's writeup lays the stress on how C-like Go is in its roots, though it has plenty of modern ideas mixed in:
"For example, there is a shorthand syntax for variable assignment that supports simple type inference.
It also has anonymous function syntax that lets you use real closures.
There are some Python-like features too, including array slices and a map type with constructor syntax that looks like Python's dictionary concept.
... One of the distinguishing characteristics of Go is its unusual type system.
It eschews some typical object-oriented programming concepts such as inheritance.
You can define struct types and then create methods for operating on them.
You can also define interfaces, much like you can in Java.
In Go, however, you don't manually specify which interface a class implements.
... Parallelism is emphasized in Go's design.
The language introduces the concept of 'goroutines' which are executed concurrently.
... The language provides a 'channel' mechanism that can be used to safely pass data in and out of goroutines.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30069260</id>
	<title>Interfaces</title>
	<author>elnyka</author>
	<datestamp>1257095460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Where C++ provides classes, subclasses and templates, Go provides interfaces. A Go interface is similar to a C++ pure abstract class: a class with no data members, with methods which are all pure virtual. However, in Go, <b>any type which provides the methods named in the interface may be treated as an implementation of the interface</b>. No explicitly declared inheritance is required. The implementation of the interface is entirely separate from the interface itself</p></div><p>Now, this is awesome.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Where C + + provides classes , subclasses and templates , Go provides interfaces .
A Go interface is similar to a C + + pure abstract class : a class with no data members , with methods which are all pure virtual .
However , in Go , any type which provides the methods named in the interface may be treated as an implementation of the interface .
No explicitly declared inheritance is required .
The implementation of the interface is entirely separate from the interface itselfNow , this is awesome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where C++ provides classes, subclasses and templates, Go provides interfaces.
A Go interface is similar to a C++ pure abstract class: a class with no data members, with methods which are all pure virtual.
However, in Go, any type which provides the methods named in the interface may be treated as an implementation of the interface.
No explicitly declared inheritance is required.
The implementation of the interface is entirely separate from the interface itselfNow, this is awesome.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056574</id>
	<title>Re:Build-in function library</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257878040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're a bitch and i'm gonna rape you like one. Bend over fag.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're a bitch and i 'm gon na rape you like one .
Bend over fag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're a bitch and i'm gonna rape you like one.
Bend over fag.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059154</id>
	<title>Re:No templates, no party.</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1257085620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Templates is one of C++'s advantage over any other language (except D that implements them).</p></div><p>
Maybe. Its certainly one of its features. Not sure if its an advantage. The most common uses for templates are implemented in other languages as first class features.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Without templates, type safe containers and reusable algorithms cannot be implemented.</p></div><p>
Wrong. Seriously wrong. Very seriously wrong. Extremely very seriously wrong. Did I mention that this is wrong?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>That the type goes after the variable name, the missing parentheses in 'if' and 'for' statements are syntactic changes that offer no better readability over C.</p></div><p>
Plenty of very popular languages put type names after the variable name, nor require parentheses for if's and for's. The most used programming language on the planet (VBA) for instance. Also "missing" in many languages are semicolons and curly braces.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Finally, the built-in channel mechanism is something that can be done in C++ in less than 100 lines of code.</p></div><p>
No it can't. C++ doesn't even have portable threading yet. I have determined that you are smoking the my-language-is-better-than-yours crack pipe, while basking in the myopic kool-aid of a one compiler and one operating system universe of blindfolded ignorance.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Templates is one of C + + 's advantage over any other language ( except D that implements them ) .
Maybe. Its certainly one of its features .
Not sure if its an advantage .
The most common uses for templates are implemented in other languages as first class features.Without templates , type safe containers and reusable algorithms can not be implemented .
Wrong. Seriously wrong .
Very seriously wrong .
Extremely very seriously wrong .
Did I mention that this is wrong ? That the type goes after the variable name , the missing parentheses in 'if ' and 'for ' statements are syntactic changes that offer no better readability over C . Plenty of very popular languages put type names after the variable name , nor require parentheses for if 's and for 's .
The most used programming language on the planet ( VBA ) for instance .
Also " missing " in many languages are semicolons and curly braces.Finally , the built-in channel mechanism is something that can be done in C + + in less than 100 lines of code .
No it ca n't .
C + + does n't even have portable threading yet .
I have determined that you are smoking the my-language-is-better-than-yours crack pipe , while basking in the myopic kool-aid of a one compiler and one operating system universe of blindfolded ignorance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Templates is one of C++'s advantage over any other language (except D that implements them).
Maybe. Its certainly one of its features.
Not sure if its an advantage.
The most common uses for templates are implemented in other languages as first class features.Without templates, type safe containers and reusable algorithms cannot be implemented.
Wrong. Seriously wrong.
Very seriously wrong.
Extremely very seriously wrong.
Did I mention that this is wrong?That the type goes after the variable name, the missing parentheses in 'if' and 'for' statements are syntactic changes that offer no better readability over C.
Plenty of very popular languages put type names after the variable name, nor require parentheses for if's and for's.
The most used programming language on the planet (VBA) for instance.
Also "missing" in many languages are semicolons and curly braces.Finally, the built-in channel mechanism is something that can be done in C++ in less than 100 lines of code.
No it can't.
C++ doesn't even have portable threading yet.
I have determined that you are smoking the my-language-is-better-than-yours crack pipe, while basking in the myopic kool-aid of a one compiler and one operating system universe of blindfolded ignorance.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30066044</id>
	<title>Re:No templates, no party.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257072120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you think that basing generic containers on a void* architecture is mutually exclusive with type-safe containers, you are a Jr. programmer, period. Templates (for generic programming, not for all that meta-programming silliness), by the way, can be largely and adequately implemented with nothing more than an existing C or C++ preprocessor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you think that basing generic containers on a void * architecture is mutually exclusive with type-safe containers , you are a Jr. programmer , period .
Templates ( for generic programming , not for all that meta-programming silliness ) , by the way , can be largely and adequately implemented with nothing more than an existing C or C + + preprocessor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you think that basing generic containers on a void* architecture is mutually exclusive with type-safe containers, you are a Jr. programmer, period.
Templates (for generic programming, not for all that meta-programming silliness), by the way, can be largely and adequately implemented with nothing more than an existing C or C++ preprocessor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30068018</id>
	<title>Re:Google search "Go"</title>
	<author>AtrN</author>
	<datestamp>1257083340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>C+@ was essentially Smalltalk in C's clothing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>C + @ was essentially Smalltalk in C 's clothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C+@ was essentially Smalltalk in C's clothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057898</id>
	<title>How does it compare to D?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257072720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can some expert compare Go with the <a href="http://www.digitalmars.com/d/" title="digitalmars.com" rel="nofollow">D programming language?</a> [digitalmars.com]. Looks like D already took what's good in C and C++ and now it's a stable and damn fast language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can some expert compare Go with the D programming language ?
[ digitalmars.com ] . Looks like D already took what 's good in C and C + + and now it 's a stable and damn fast language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can some expert compare Go with the D programming language?
[digitalmars.com]. Looks like D already took what's good in C and C++ and now it's a stable and damn fast language.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057500</id>
	<title>Re:compiled in under 10 sec?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257067440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a Sega Genesis that won't compile it at all... damn you, Google!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a Sega Genesis that wo n't compile it at all... damn you , Google !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a Sega Genesis that won't compile it at all... damn you, Google!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056646</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30070788</id>
	<title>Re:"Go" name already taken for programming languag</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258025580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This Comment deserves to be a Slashot Headline!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This Comment deserves to be a Slashot Headline !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This Comment deserves to be a Slashot Headline!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058542</id>
	<title>Re:No templates, no party.</title>
	<author>Vintermann</author>
	<datestamp>1257079920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your three first sentences are wrong, wrong and wrong...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your three first sentences are wrong , wrong and wrong.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your three first sentences are wrong, wrong and wrong...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058298</id>
	<title>Re:Build-in function library</title>
	<author>daid303</author>
	<datestamp>1257077040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LUA is a pure C implementation that you can run on just about anything. With a C API to embed it in your own application. I cannot find anything like that in the GO documentation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LUA is a pure C implementation that you can run on just about anything .
With a C API to embed it in your own application .
I can not find anything like that in the GO documentation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LUA is a pure C implementation that you can run on just about anything.
With a C API to embed it in your own application.
I cannot find anything like that in the GO documentation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056808</id>
	<title>Re:Google search "Go"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257880080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
<i>It's a small complaint, I'm sure.. but couldn't they have given it a name that you could, you know, Google?</i>
</p><p>
One could do worse.  There was a language called "C+@" developed at Bell Labs.  It's derived from C, with classes, dynamism, and safety, much like Java.  It predates Java by a few years.  Try to find it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a small complaint , I 'm sure.. but could n't they have given it a name that you could , you know , Google ?
One could do worse .
There was a language called " C + @ " developed at Bell Labs .
It 's derived from C , with classes , dynamism , and safety , much like Java .
It predates Java by a few years .
Try to find it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
It's a small complaint, I'm sure.. but couldn't they have given it a name that you could, you know, Google?
One could do worse.
There was a language called "C+@" developed at Bell Labs.
It's derived from C, with classes, dynamism, and safety, much like Java.
It predates Java by a few years.
Try to find it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057140</id>
	<title>Re:Sponsored by Inspector Gadget</title>
	<author>EspressoFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1257106140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>co-sponsored with the power rangers...</htmltext>
<tokenext>co-sponsored with the power rangers.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>co-sponsored with the power rangers...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30067726</id>
	<title>Comma grouping at every factor of 1,000?</title>
	<author>zooblethorpe</author>
	<datestamp>1257081000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>version 2: Goo<br>
version 3: Gooo</p><p>It will probably mature around the time Goooooo comes out - can't wait to use it!</p></div> </blockquote><p>Shouldn't that be <b>G,ooo,ooo</b>?  Or perhaps the first "o" for the zeroth release, so the upcoming first release will be <b>Gone</b>?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>Cheers,</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>version 2 : Goo version 3 : GoooIt will probably mature around the time Goooooo comes out - ca n't wait to use it !
Should n't that be G,ooo,ooo ?
Or perhaps the first " o " for the zeroth release , so the upcoming first release will be Gone ?
: ) Cheers ,</tokentext>
<sentencetext>version 2: Goo
version 3: GoooIt will probably mature around the time Goooooo comes out - can't wait to use it!
Shouldn't that be G,ooo,ooo?
Or perhaps the first "o" for the zeroth release, so the upcoming first release will be Gone?
:)Cheers,
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056494</id>
	<title>Build-in function library</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257877260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the things I immediatly noticed is the lack of build-in libraries. The reason I've always preferred Delphi and C# over C/C++ and PHP over Perl is that they all come with a comprehensive build-in function library for wide area of things.</p><p>Programming now a days tend to be mostly high-level, so you would expect that new languages would provide that. I personally hate to find tons of different libraries for C++ projects just to do a basic thing. And lets be honest, theres no sense of everyone of us to code the basic functions again (and probably in worse code than the regularly checked build-in functions)</p><p>That is why I love PHP, and because it provides a great manual on its functions. That is also why I love Delphi and why I started using it as 10 year old, without internet too - the reference guide that came with it was comprehensive and the build-in libraries and components for different things allowed me to rapidly try out to code apps and games. Only time I needed to find some libraries/components was when I was looking for a more rapid and better graphics library to do the drawing in my games.</p><p>That is what would be "fun" in a programming language. It comes a <b>lot</b> before "fast builds, clean syntax, garbage collection, methods for any type, and run-time reflection."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the things I immediatly noticed is the lack of build-in libraries .
The reason I 've always preferred Delphi and C # over C/C + + and PHP over Perl is that they all come with a comprehensive build-in function library for wide area of things.Programming now a days tend to be mostly high-level , so you would expect that new languages would provide that .
I personally hate to find tons of different libraries for C + + projects just to do a basic thing .
And lets be honest , theres no sense of everyone of us to code the basic functions again ( and probably in worse code than the regularly checked build-in functions ) That is why I love PHP , and because it provides a great manual on its functions .
That is also why I love Delphi and why I started using it as 10 year old , without internet too - the reference guide that came with it was comprehensive and the build-in libraries and components for different things allowed me to rapidly try out to code apps and games .
Only time I needed to find some libraries/components was when I was looking for a more rapid and better graphics library to do the drawing in my games.That is what would be " fun " in a programming language .
It comes a lot before " fast builds , clean syntax , garbage collection , methods for any type , and run-time reflection .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the things I immediatly noticed is the lack of build-in libraries.
The reason I've always preferred Delphi and C# over C/C++ and PHP over Perl is that they all come with a comprehensive build-in function library for wide area of things.Programming now a days tend to be mostly high-level, so you would expect that new languages would provide that.
I personally hate to find tons of different libraries for C++ projects just to do a basic thing.
And lets be honest, theres no sense of everyone of us to code the basic functions again (and probably in worse code than the regularly checked build-in functions)That is why I love PHP, and because it provides a great manual on its functions.
That is also why I love Delphi and why I started using it as 10 year old, without internet too - the reference guide that came with it was comprehensive and the build-in libraries and components for different things allowed me to rapidly try out to code apps and games.
Only time I needed to find some libraries/components was when I was looking for a more rapid and better graphics library to do the drawing in my games.That is what would be "fun" in a programming language.
It comes a lot before "fast builds, clean syntax, garbage collection, methods for any type, and run-time reflection.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057044</id>
	<title>Well said</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257882600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was just about to bemoan the naming, which conflicts with Go (the board game), which is already difficult enough to google.  The fact that it's GOOGLE making this mistake is pretty bad.  On the other hand, maybe they'll fix the bug in their search engine now, and make it easier to google both<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was just about to bemoan the naming , which conflicts with Go ( the board game ) , which is already difficult enough to google .
The fact that it 's GOOGLE making this mistake is pretty bad .
On the other hand , maybe they 'll fix the bug in their search engine now , and make it easier to google both : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was just about to bemoan the naming, which conflicts with Go (the board game), which is already difficult enough to google.
The fact that it's GOOGLE making this mistake is pretty bad.
On the other hand, maybe they'll fix the bug in their search engine now, and make it easier to google both :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059220</id>
	<title>meh</title>
	<author>PJ6</author>
	<datestamp>1257086100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The syntax is nothing special. Let's see if it delivers anything compelling in practice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The syntax is nothing special .
Let 's see if it delivers anything compelling in practice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The syntax is nothing special.
Let's see if it delivers anything compelling in practice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30063818</id>
	<title>Re:Ummm, C++ has a string class.</title>
	<author>feandil</author>
	<datestamp>1257105540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>pointer arithmetic is useful for efficient code, it has nothing to do with "high" or "low" level.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>pointer arithmetic is useful for efficient code , it has nothing to do with " high " or " low " level .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>pointer arithmetic is useful for efficient code, it has nothing to do with "high" or "low" level.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058002</id>
	<title>Do we need more languages?</title>
	<author>benwiggy</author>
	<datestamp>1257073860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do we really need more programming languages? Aren't there enough to do everything yet?</p><p>Shouldn't we be trying to reduce the number of languages, rather than add to it? Or even better, create yet another layer of abstraction between us and the machines that gets us away from being slaves to syntax?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do we really need more programming languages ?
Are n't there enough to do everything yet ? Should n't we be trying to reduce the number of languages , rather than add to it ?
Or even better , create yet another layer of abstraction between us and the machines that gets us away from being slaves to syntax ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do we really need more programming languages?
Aren't there enough to do everything yet?Shouldn't we be trying to reduce the number of languages, rather than add to it?
Or even better, create yet another layer of abstraction between us and the machines that gets us away from being slaves to syntax?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30069716</id>
	<title>Re:No templates, no party.</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1257100680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The syntax is also not that good. That the type goes after the variable name</p></div><p>Don't even get me started on this. Huge part of why C has those largely unreadable nested array/pointer/function-pointer types is precisely because it has type before name; and it has that because it inherited it from Algol-68 (which inherited it from Algol-60). It worked alright when the language had a grand total of 4 simple types (boolean, integer, real, text) and 1 complex type with no nesting (array of any simple type), but it doesn't scale well.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The syntax is also not that good .
That the type goes after the variable nameDo n't even get me started on this .
Huge part of why C has those largely unreadable nested array/pointer/function-pointer types is precisely because it has type before name ; and it has that because it inherited it from Algol-68 ( which inherited it from Algol-60 ) .
It worked alright when the language had a grand total of 4 simple types ( boolean , integer , real , text ) and 1 complex type with no nesting ( array of any simple type ) , but it does n't scale well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The syntax is also not that good.
That the type goes after the variable nameDon't even get me started on this.
Huge part of why C has those largely unreadable nested array/pointer/function-pointer types is precisely because it has type before name; and it has that because it inherited it from Algol-68 (which inherited it from Algol-60).
It worked alright when the language had a grand total of 4 simple types (boolean, integer, real, text) and 1 complex type with no nesting (array of any simple type), but it doesn't scale well.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064978</id>
	<title>Re:gccgo? Why not LLVM?</title>
	<author>basiles</author>
	<datestamp>1257066780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of the main reasons to go to GCC not LLVM is that Google has <b>several top GCC experts</b> (nice people like Ian Taylor, Diego Novillo, Rafael Espindola and many others). On the contrary, few Google employees seem to post on LLVM mailing lists.

And I see a simple reason for Google to pay leading experts on GCC. Google has a big lot of servers running Linux, and most of Linux is GCC compiled (in particular the kernel). Put it in a simpler way: if their experts are able to improve GCC just by 0.03\% (or perhaps 0.05\%) the saving in energy bills alone is paying the entire team of GCC experts at Google.

In GCC summits some Google guys mention a single binary executable of more than 700 megabytes. I don't think that migrating such a monster program to Clang is easy, and an easy decision to take. In addition, Google has several Linux kernel experts (and they have their own patched kernel). These guys need GCC to compile that kernel.

Perhaps Google also invest effort in LLVM. I don't know.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the main reasons to go to GCC not LLVM is that Google has several top GCC experts ( nice people like Ian Taylor , Diego Novillo , Rafael Espindola and many others ) .
On the contrary , few Google employees seem to post on LLVM mailing lists .
And I see a simple reason for Google to pay leading experts on GCC .
Google has a big lot of servers running Linux , and most of Linux is GCC compiled ( in particular the kernel ) .
Put it in a simpler way : if their experts are able to improve GCC just by 0.03 \ % ( or perhaps 0.05 \ % ) the saving in energy bills alone is paying the entire team of GCC experts at Google .
In GCC summits some Google guys mention a single binary executable of more than 700 megabytes .
I do n't think that migrating such a monster program to Clang is easy , and an easy decision to take .
In addition , Google has several Linux kernel experts ( and they have their own patched kernel ) .
These guys need GCC to compile that kernel .
Perhaps Google also invest effort in LLVM .
I do n't know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the main reasons to go to GCC not LLVM is that Google has several top GCC experts (nice people like Ian Taylor, Diego Novillo, Rafael Espindola and many others).
On the contrary, few Google employees seem to post on LLVM mailing lists.
And I see a simple reason for Google to pay leading experts on GCC.
Google has a big lot of servers running Linux, and most of Linux is GCC compiled (in particular the kernel).
Put it in a simpler way: if their experts are able to improve GCC just by 0.03\% (or perhaps 0.05\%) the saving in energy bills alone is paying the entire team of GCC experts at Google.
In GCC summits some Google guys mention a single binary executable of more than 700 megabytes.
I don't think that migrating such a monster program to Clang is easy, and an easy decision to take.
In addition, Google has several Linux kernel experts (and they have their own patched kernel).
These guys need GCC to compile that kernel.
Perhaps Google also invest effort in LLVM.
I don't know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057856</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>Roy van Rijn</author>
	<datestamp>1257072000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What you are describing isn't really a language thing, its more the IDE or compiler. Sure we could use smarter compilers and/or IDE's. For example when you forget a semi-colon in Java the compilers are smart enough to point out the exact location... but it doesn't fix it. Probably because it wants you to learn and correct your code...?</p><p>I'd rather have very smart tooling which gets to know me and corrects me. A bit like Spring Roo works in Java, a genie which just assists you. But I imagine something even smarter, like you said, on the fly typo-correction, but also using the knowledge other tools have, like FindBug, detecting (possible) coding-errors while writing them. Maybe auto-generate certain structures that are used a lot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What you are describing is n't really a language thing , its more the IDE or compiler .
Sure we could use smarter compilers and/or IDE 's .
For example when you forget a semi-colon in Java the compilers are smart enough to point out the exact location... but it does n't fix it .
Probably because it wants you to learn and correct your code... ? I 'd rather have very smart tooling which gets to know me and corrects me .
A bit like Spring Roo works in Java , a genie which just assists you .
But I imagine something even smarter , like you said , on the fly typo-correction , but also using the knowledge other tools have , like FindBug , detecting ( possible ) coding-errors while writing them .
Maybe auto-generate certain structures that are used a lot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What you are describing isn't really a language thing, its more the IDE or compiler.
Sure we could use smarter compilers and/or IDE's.
For example when you forget a semi-colon in Java the compilers are smart enough to point out the exact location... but it doesn't fix it.
Probably because it wants you to learn and correct your code...?I'd rather have very smart tooling which gets to know me and corrects me.
A bit like Spring Roo works in Java, a genie which just assists you.
But I imagine something even smarter, like you said, on the fly typo-correction, but also using the knowledge other tools have, like FindBug, detecting (possible) coding-errors while writing them.
Maybe auto-generate certain structures that are used a lot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057134</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257106080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why can't compilers be more intelligent about the types of errors they encounter in routine usage?</i></p><p>Ummmm... I don't think it's a good idea to let the compiler "fix" misspellings in my code. Will it change "plaeyrArray" to "playerArray" or "payerArray"? I don't see anything wrong with just reporting an error.</p><p><i>For that matter, why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that's already there?</i></p><p>Aren't you confusing elements of language syntax with visual formatting? I think some languages use indentation for defining functions and whatnot but it seems like a bad idea. to me. Would  6 spaces mean the same thing as a tab and 2 spaces? Would the program change operation if I format it to print the source differently? Yikes!</p><p>PS. Isn't using var names like "xxxArray" considered poor form? It brings back bad memories to me of 1980's Windows programming, heheheh!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why ca n't compilers be more intelligent about the types of errors they encounter in routine usage ? Ummmm... I do n't think it 's a good idea to let the compiler " fix " misspellings in my code .
Will it change " plaeyrArray " to " playerArray " or " payerArray " ?
I do n't see anything wrong with just reporting an error.For that matter , why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that 's already there ? Are n't you confusing elements of language syntax with visual formatting ?
I think some languages use indentation for defining functions and whatnot but it seems like a bad idea .
to me .
Would 6 spaces mean the same thing as a tab and 2 spaces ?
Would the program change operation if I format it to print the source differently ?
Yikes ! PS. Is n't using var names like " xxxArray " considered poor form ?
It brings back bad memories to me of 1980 's Windows programming , heheheh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why can't compilers be more intelligent about the types of errors they encounter in routine usage?Ummmm... I don't think it's a good idea to let the compiler "fix" misspellings in my code.
Will it change "plaeyrArray" to "playerArray" or "payerArray"?
I don't see anything wrong with just reporting an error.For that matter, why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that's already there?Aren't you confusing elements of language syntax with visual formatting?
I think some languages use indentation for defining functions and whatnot but it seems like a bad idea.
to me.
Would  6 spaces mean the same thing as a tab and 2 spaces?
Would the program change operation if I format it to print the source differently?
Yikes!PS. Isn't using var names like "xxxArray" considered poor form?
It brings back bad memories to me of 1980's Windows programming, heheheh!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057200</id>
	<title>Re:Holy Shitbags Binaries Are Static And *Huge*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257106920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah because it won't scale up you fucking twit. I think you're another one that needs a cock in your mouth and especially in your ass. I'm gonna bring the niggers with me over to your house and show you what 581K is nothing compared to what you're gonna get.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah because it wo n't scale up you fucking twit .
I think you 're another one that needs a cock in your mouth and especially in your ass .
I 'm gon na bring the niggers with me over to your house and show you what 581K is nothing compared to what you 're gon na get .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah because it won't scale up you fucking twit.
I think you're another one that needs a cock in your mouth and especially in your ass.
I'm gonna bring the niggers with me over to your house and show you what 581K is nothing compared to what you're gonna get.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060082</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>schnablebg</author>
	<datestamp>1257090420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Personally, I just want to see programming languages that are more programmer fault-tolerant. I can type "pizza" into my phone and have Chuck-E-Cheese offer to bake one while I drive over, but if I accidentally type "plaeyrArray" instead of "playerArray," the whole world is clearly on fire and everyone is going to die. Why can't compilers be more intelligent about the types of errors they encounter in routine usage?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

Try an editor with auto-completion.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally , I just want to see programming languages that are more programmer fault-tolerant .
I can type " pizza " into my phone and have Chuck-E-Cheese offer to bake one while I drive over , but if I accidentally type " plaeyrArray " instead of " playerArray , " the whole world is clearly on fire and everyone is going to die .
Why ca n't compilers be more intelligent about the types of errors they encounter in routine usage ?
Try an editor with auto-completion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally, I just want to see programming languages that are more programmer fault-tolerant.
I can type "pizza" into my phone and have Chuck-E-Cheese offer to bake one while I drive over, but if I accidentally type "plaeyrArray" instead of "playerArray," the whole world is clearly on fire and everyone is going to die.
Why can't compilers be more intelligent about the types of errors they encounter in routine usage?
Try an editor with auto-completion.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30062254</id>
	<title>Re:Fixes problems misguided people think C++ has.</title>
	<author>dargaud</author>
	<datestamp>1257099300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you ARE a language inventor and reading my comment, answer this: can you write a cache/MMU interface or an interrupt handler in your language? If the answer is no, go back to the drawing board.</p></div><p>Well, easy solution: make sure your new language interfaces easily with C and write the interrupt handler in C. Why would you want to use C++ in an interrupt handler anyway ?!?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ARE a language inventor and reading my comment , answer this : can you write a cache/MMU interface or an interrupt handler in your language ?
If the answer is no , go back to the drawing board.Well , easy solution : make sure your new language interfaces easily with C and write the interrupt handler in C. Why would you want to use C + + in an interrupt handler anyway ? !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you ARE a language inventor and reading my comment, answer this: can you write a cache/MMU interface or an interrupt handler in your language?
If the answer is no, go back to the drawing board.Well, easy solution: make sure your new language interfaces easily with C and write the interrupt handler in C. Why would you want to use C++ in an interrupt handler anyway ?!
?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30084204</id>
	<title>Re:No exceptions? Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258142820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Error codes work here, except that they're cumbersome. Want to include information on exactly what kind of a parser error occurred? Now you're going to have to return both an error code and an error string. Maybe you'll even return an error object.</p></div><p>Not that I disagree with the notion that exceptions are a useful feature, but they provide for multiple return values* to make it lot less clunky</p><p>* http://golang.org/doc/effective\_go.html#multiple-returns</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Error codes work here , except that they 're cumbersome .
Want to include information on exactly what kind of a parser error occurred ?
Now you 're going to have to return both an error code and an error string .
Maybe you 'll even return an error object.Not that I disagree with the notion that exceptions are a useful feature , but they provide for multiple return values * to make it lot less clunky * http : //golang.org/doc/effective \ _go.html # multiple-returns</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Error codes work here, except that they're cumbersome.
Want to include information on exactly what kind of a parser error occurred?
Now you're going to have to return both an error code and an error string.
Maybe you'll even return an error object.Not that I disagree with the notion that exceptions are a useful feature, but they provide for multiple return values* to make it lot less clunky* http://golang.org/doc/effective\_go.html#multiple-returns
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057770</id>
	<title>Re:fmt</title>
	<author>dunkelfalke</author>
	<datestamp>1257070680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wll, why d y thnk w nd nthr c?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wll , why d y thnk w nd nthr c ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wll, why d y thnk w nd nthr c?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30067496</id>
	<title>Re:C++ incomplete. C# windoz. Java slow elephant.</title>
	<author>LionMage</author>
	<datestamp>1257079500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And no, "that was only added in 1995" doesn't count as a criticism since C++ was not defined as an ISO standard until 1998 and std::string has been there ever since.</p></div></blockquote><p>And for those of us who were writing C++ code before there was an ANSI (let alone ISO) standard, how would this not be a legitimate criticism?  I started writing C++ before templates were a standard part of most C++ implementations, and many C++ compilers I used were glorified ports of the AT&amp;T cfront C++-to-C compiler.</p><p>That there were no decent standard libraries before circa 1995 is bad enough.  Even well after that time, there were still C++ environments I <em>had to</em> write code in which still didn't support templates, or didn't have a decent string class, or were missing the many useful things in STL.  I distinctly remember contacting an old professor of mine at RPI to get a working STL I could use for a project at American Express, and this was circa 1996, maybe 1997.  I also remember trying to port a Windows application for IGC -- it apparently built fine on Solaris using Mainsoft's MainWin porting libraries, but the HP-UX compiler was a whole other kettle of fish that required the programmer to supply separate files to give it hints on how to instantiate templates.</p><p>Even when strings were widely available in all major C++ implementations, a lot of old hat C++ programmers were writing their own implementations or using some third party string implementation instead of using the standard.  I suppose some of that is programmer inertia, and some of that is lack of trust in the "official" implementation.  I think the lesson here is, "Never ship a new programming language without all the basic data types and collections taken care of."</p><p>I think a lot of the rest of what the GP has to say is bunk or suspect, but you can't just dismiss the bad experiences that a lot of developers had with C++.  Many of us were forced to use it long before it was fully baked and ready.  So yes, it's entirely fair to criticize a programming language if it's in wide use before a standard is finalized.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And no , " that was only added in 1995 " does n't count as a criticism since C + + was not defined as an ISO standard until 1998 and std : : string has been there ever since.And for those of us who were writing C + + code before there was an ANSI ( let alone ISO ) standard , how would this not be a legitimate criticism ?
I started writing C + + before templates were a standard part of most C + + implementations , and many C + + compilers I used were glorified ports of the AT&amp;T cfront C + + -to-C compiler.That there were no decent standard libraries before circa 1995 is bad enough .
Even well after that time , there were still C + + environments I had to write code in which still did n't support templates , or did n't have a decent string class , or were missing the many useful things in STL .
I distinctly remember contacting an old professor of mine at RPI to get a working STL I could use for a project at American Express , and this was circa 1996 , maybe 1997 .
I also remember trying to port a Windows application for IGC -- it apparently built fine on Solaris using Mainsoft 's MainWin porting libraries , but the HP-UX compiler was a whole other kettle of fish that required the programmer to supply separate files to give it hints on how to instantiate templates.Even when strings were widely available in all major C + + implementations , a lot of old hat C + + programmers were writing their own implementations or using some third party string implementation instead of using the standard .
I suppose some of that is programmer inertia , and some of that is lack of trust in the " official " implementation .
I think the lesson here is , " Never ship a new programming language without all the basic data types and collections taken care of .
" I think a lot of the rest of what the GP has to say is bunk or suspect , but you ca n't just dismiss the bad experiences that a lot of developers had with C + + .
Many of us were forced to use it long before it was fully baked and ready .
So yes , it 's entirely fair to criticize a programming language if it 's in wide use before a standard is finalized .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And no, "that was only added in 1995" doesn't count as a criticism since C++ was not defined as an ISO standard until 1998 and std::string has been there ever since.And for those of us who were writing C++ code before there was an ANSI (let alone ISO) standard, how would this not be a legitimate criticism?
I started writing C++ before templates were a standard part of most C++ implementations, and many C++ compilers I used were glorified ports of the AT&amp;T cfront C++-to-C compiler.That there were no decent standard libraries before circa 1995 is bad enough.
Even well after that time, there were still C++ environments I had to write code in which still didn't support templates, or didn't have a decent string class, or were missing the many useful things in STL.
I distinctly remember contacting an old professor of mine at RPI to get a working STL I could use for a project at American Express, and this was circa 1996, maybe 1997.
I also remember trying to port a Windows application for IGC -- it apparently built fine on Solaris using Mainsoft's MainWin porting libraries, but the HP-UX compiler was a whole other kettle of fish that required the programmer to supply separate files to give it hints on how to instantiate templates.Even when strings were widely available in all major C++ implementations, a lot of old hat C++ programmers were writing their own implementations or using some third party string implementation instead of using the standard.
I suppose some of that is programmer inertia, and some of that is lack of trust in the "official" implementation.
I think the lesson here is, "Never ship a new programming language without all the basic data types and collections taken care of.
"I think a lot of the rest of what the GP has to say is bunk or suspect, but you can't just dismiss the bad experiences that a lot of developers had with C++.
Many of us were forced to use it long before it was fully baked and ready.
So yes, it's entirely fair to criticize a programming language if it's in wide use before a standard is finalized.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30065022</id>
	<title>Re:Google search "Go"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257067020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The P is implied and therefore unnecessary. There's no spoken Go language, so we can assume Go, the language is a programming language. What we can't assume is that it's open source, since there are plenty of languages that aren't. So we can abbreviate the Open Go Language as OpenGL, which should clear up any confusion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The P is implied and therefore unnecessary .
There 's no spoken Go language , so we can assume Go , the language is a programming language .
What we ca n't assume is that it 's open source , since there are plenty of languages that are n't .
So we can abbreviate the Open Go Language as OpenGL , which should clear up any confusion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The P is implied and therefore unnecessary.
There's no spoken Go language, so we can assume Go, the language is a programming language.
What we can't assume is that it's open source, since there are plenty of languages that aren't.
So we can abbreviate the Open Go Language as OpenGL, which should clear up any confusion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058044</id>
	<title>Beowulf clusters!!!</title>
	<author>ctrl-alt-canc</author>
	<datestamp>1257074280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, since Go has some <a href="http://golang.org/doc/go\_lang\_faq.html" title="golang.org" rel="nofollow">native support</a> [golang.org] for concurrency, it shouldn't be that difficult to have it running on a Beowulf cluster...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , since Go has some native support [ golang.org ] for concurrency , it should n't be that difficult to have it running on a Beowulf cluster.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, since Go has some native support [golang.org] for concurrency, it shouldn't be that difficult to have it running on a Beowulf cluster...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060132</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257090660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'am using DVORAK, you insensitive clod! And I don't do it because it is fast, but because I'm lazy like hell! (and like to avoid RSI).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I'am using DVORAK , you insensitive clod !
And I do n't do it because it is fast , but because I 'm lazy like hell !
( and like to avoid RSI ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'am using DVORAK, you insensitive clod!
And I don't do it because it is fast, but because I'm lazy like hell!
(and like to avoid RSI).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057872</id>
	<title>Yawn</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1257072240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The 1990s is calling and wants the C vs. C++ wars back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The 1990s is calling and wants the C vs. C + + wars back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The 1990s is calling and wants the C vs. C++ wars back.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057580</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060024</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257090120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's strange. In the 5 years of Python coding I've never ever had problems with indentation.<br>So I think it's just prejudice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's strange .
In the 5 years of Python coding I 've never ever had problems with indentation.So I think it 's just prejudice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's strange.
In the 5 years of Python coding I've never ever had problems with indentation.So I think it's just prejudice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056906</id>
	<title>GoLibs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257881160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or maybe we should drop the term "Library". M$ probably has it trade marked.  I vote GoNads!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or maybe we should drop the term " Library " .
M $ probably has it trade marked .
I vote GoNads !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or maybe we should drop the term "Library".
M$ probably has it trade marked.
I vote GoNads!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058856</id>
	<title>Re:I prefer brevity support</title>
	<author>dave1791</author>
	<datestamp>1257082980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can read code that says "format" faster than code that says "fmt" because I don't need to devote any thought processes to determining that "fmt" probably means "format".  Have you ever read a forum post by a teenager writing in sms style?  It makes you want to stab your eyes out.  It is much faster to type that way on a handset and I've seen them make exactly the same argument for using it when they have a full size keyboard; that it is faster to type that way.  Unfortunately, it is an order of magnitude slower to read.</p><p>I also have a second negative view about overly concise code; it promotes buggyness.  In code that I have maintained over the years, I've noticed that more bugs (and harder to fix bugs) show up in the super concise and unreadable code than in highly readable code.  Also, fixing these bugs is more likely to introduce regressions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can read code that says " format " faster than code that says " fmt " because I do n't need to devote any thought processes to determining that " fmt " probably means " format " .
Have you ever read a forum post by a teenager writing in sms style ?
It makes you want to stab your eyes out .
It is much faster to type that way on a handset and I 've seen them make exactly the same argument for using it when they have a full size keyboard ; that it is faster to type that way .
Unfortunately , it is an order of magnitude slower to read.I also have a second negative view about overly concise code ; it promotes buggyness .
In code that I have maintained over the years , I 've noticed that more bugs ( and harder to fix bugs ) show up in the super concise and unreadable code than in highly readable code .
Also , fixing these bugs is more likely to introduce regressions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can read code that says "format" faster than code that says "fmt" because I don't need to devote any thought processes to determining that "fmt" probably means "format".
Have you ever read a forum post by a teenager writing in sms style?
It makes you want to stab your eyes out.
It is much faster to type that way on a handset and I've seen them make exactly the same argument for using it when they have a full size keyboard; that it is faster to type that way.
Unfortunately, it is an order of magnitude slower to read.I also have a second negative view about overly concise code; it promotes buggyness.
In code that I have maintained over the years, I've noticed that more bugs (and harder to fix bugs) show up in the super concise and unreadable code than in highly readable code.
Also, fixing these bugs is more likely to introduce regressions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057806</id>
	<title>Not Invented Here</title>
	<author>nut</author>
	<datestamp>1257071160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google is developing a real, 'Not Invented Here' complex.  Rather than get behind Firefox, they produce their own browser. Rather than integrate tightly with OpenOffice, they produce Google Apps. Now they've written their own programming language. Go figure. And of course there's always those rumours of the Google OS...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is developing a real , 'Not Invented Here ' complex .
Rather than get behind Firefox , they produce their own browser .
Rather than integrate tightly with OpenOffice , they produce Google Apps .
Now they 've written their own programming language .
Go figure .
And of course there 's always those rumours of the Google OS.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is developing a real, 'Not Invented Here' complex.
Rather than get behind Firefox, they produce their own browser.
Rather than integrate tightly with OpenOffice, they produce Google Apps.
Now they've written their own programming language.
Go figure.
And of course there's always those rumours of the Google OS...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30071108</id>
	<title>Re:C++ incomplete. C# windoz. Java slow elephant.</title>
	<author>acheron12</author>
	<datestamp>1258030740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>C++ come on it didn't even have a string class.  Thus pointer math hell.</p></div><p>#include &lt;string&gt;
<br>
<br>int main() {
<br> std::string s = "What am I, chopped liver?";
<br> cout &lt;&lt; s;
<br> return 0;
<br>}</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>C + + come on it did n't even have a string class .
Thus pointer math hell. # include int main ( ) { std : : string s = " What am I , chopped liver ?
" ; cout return 0 ; }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C++ come on it didn't even have a string class.
Thus pointer math hell.#include 

int main() {
 std::string s = "What am I, chopped liver?
";
 cout  return 0;
}
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30071304</id>
	<title>Nobody needs yet another imparative language?</title>
	<author>Ramin\_HAL9001</author>
	<datestamp>1258033860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Languages that are supposedly fun and easy to use are a dime a dozen, and yet another like this "Go" is the last thing anyone needs. C++, Java, Python. Ruby, Perl, and now "Go" all are basically the same with different syntax and type checking features. Go won't solve their underlying problems.

That is why we have Ocaml and Haskell. I really can't understand why anyone even bothers with imperative languages anymore. Aggressive type checking and the everything-is-a-function paradigm is the only way to go.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Languages that are supposedly fun and easy to use are a dime a dozen , and yet another like this " Go " is the last thing anyone needs .
C + + , Java , Python .
Ruby , Perl , and now " Go " all are basically the same with different syntax and type checking features .
Go wo n't solve their underlying problems .
That is why we have Ocaml and Haskell .
I really ca n't understand why anyone even bothers with imperative languages anymore .
Aggressive type checking and the everything-is-a-function paradigm is the only way to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Languages that are supposedly fun and easy to use are a dime a dozen, and yet another like this "Go" is the last thing anyone needs.
C++, Java, Python.
Ruby, Perl, and now "Go" all are basically the same with different syntax and type checking features.
Go won't solve their underlying problems.
That is why we have Ocaml and Haskell.
I really can't understand why anyone even bothers with imperative languages anymore.
Aggressive type checking and the everything-is-a-function paradigm is the only way to go.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060940</id>
	<title>Re:Google search "Go"</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1257094140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The C variants, C, C++, C# etc, already have to get special-treatment by search engines. So yes, it is a problem, the only reason Google/Bing/etc work well with those is because they pre-existed Google/Bing/etc.</p><p>There's no reason to create a *new* language with an unsearchable name, except general web cluelessness. And search engine providers shouldn't have special-case certain words/names just because they were coined by people who don't know how search engines work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The C variants , C , C + + , C # etc , already have to get special-treatment by search engines .
So yes , it is a problem , the only reason Google/Bing/etc work well with those is because they pre-existed Google/Bing/etc.There 's no reason to create a * new * language with an unsearchable name , except general web cluelessness .
And search engine providers should n't have special-case certain words/names just because they were coined by people who do n't know how search engines work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The C variants, C, C++, C# etc, already have to get special-treatment by search engines.
So yes, it is a problem, the only reason Google/Bing/etc work well with those is because they pre-existed Google/Bing/etc.There's no reason to create a *new* language with an unsearchable name, except general web cluelessness.
And search engine providers shouldn't have special-case certain words/names just because they were coined by people who don't know how search engines work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058082</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30068074</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1257083820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"For that matter, why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that's already there?"</p><p>Because even in 2009, there *still* isn't widespread, pervasive standardisation - to the point where you can absolutely, totally, 100\% guarantee that your code won't get mangled in translation - of what the codes for 'indentation' are. Indentation is whitespace - and by definition, in many coding guidelines and Internet transfer protocols, whitespace is fair game for destruction. Until or unless this situation changes, you simply can't guarantee that whitespace is totally system-portable.</p><p>Snap exam time: how many spaces in a tab stop? If I type that many spaces, is it the same as a tab or different? Does it look visually different? Does it look different on a printout? If I type it from eye from a magazine or a textbook, will it compile and parse EXACTLY the same?</p><p>Is CR the same as LF?</p><p>And is that always the case?</p><p>On Linux? On Windows? On MacOS? On a mainframe?  On an iPhone? On a Palm? On a CE device? On a set-top-box? In SMTP email? In a GUI text box widget? After copy-paste? After  In a HTML browser? In XML? In WhateverFancyGadgetDuJour 2030? 2050?</p><p>You quite sure about that?</p><p>Brackets, however, are always and forever brackets, unmangled in translation, until the end of the Net. Amen.</p><p>There's your answer.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" For that matter , why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that 's already there ?
" Because even in 2009 , there * still * is n't widespread , pervasive standardisation - to the point where you can absolutely , totally , 100 \ % guarantee that your code wo n't get mangled in translation - of what the codes for 'indentation ' are .
Indentation is whitespace - and by definition , in many coding guidelines and Internet transfer protocols , whitespace is fair game for destruction .
Until or unless this situation changes , you simply ca n't guarantee that whitespace is totally system-portable.Snap exam time : how many spaces in a tab stop ?
If I type that many spaces , is it the same as a tab or different ?
Does it look visually different ?
Does it look different on a printout ?
If I type it from eye from a magazine or a textbook , will it compile and parse EXACTLY the same ? Is CR the same as LF ? And is that always the case ? On Linux ?
On Windows ?
On MacOS ?
On a mainframe ?
On an iPhone ?
On a Palm ?
On a CE device ?
On a set-top-box ?
In SMTP email ?
In a GUI text box widget ?
After copy-paste ?
After In a HTML browser ?
In XML ?
In WhateverFancyGadgetDuJour 2030 ?
2050 ? You quite sure about that ? Brackets , however , are always and forever brackets , unmangled in translation , until the end of the Net .
Amen.There 's your answer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"For that matter, why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that's already there?
"Because even in 2009, there *still* isn't widespread, pervasive standardisation - to the point where you can absolutely, totally, 100\% guarantee that your code won't get mangled in translation - of what the codes for 'indentation' are.
Indentation is whitespace - and by definition, in many coding guidelines and Internet transfer protocols, whitespace is fair game for destruction.
Until or unless this situation changes, you simply can't guarantee that whitespace is totally system-portable.Snap exam time: how many spaces in a tab stop?
If I type that many spaces, is it the same as a tab or different?
Does it look visually different?
Does it look different on a printout?
If I type it from eye from a magazine or a textbook, will it compile and parse EXACTLY the same?Is CR the same as LF?And is that always the case?On Linux?
On Windows?
On MacOS?
On a mainframe?
On an iPhone?
On a Palm?
On a CE device?
On a set-top-box?
In SMTP email?
In a GUI text box widget?
After copy-paste?
After  In a HTML browser?
In XML?
In WhateverFancyGadgetDuJour 2030?
2050?You quite sure about that?Brackets, however, are always and forever brackets, unmangled in translation, until the end of the Net.
Amen.There's your answer.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059328</id>
	<title>Stupid Name</title>
	<author>Iron Monkey</author>
	<datestamp>1257086940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could they have chosen a worse name? I mean seriously, Go? That'll be easy to find on a search engine.  Well I guess it's Google so they can special-case the word, but still.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could they have chosen a worse name ?
I mean seriously , Go ?
That 'll be easy to find on a search engine .
Well I guess it 's Google so they can special-case the word , but still .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could they have chosen a worse name?
I mean seriously, Go?
That'll be easy to find on a search engine.
Well I guess it's Google so they can special-case the word, but still.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30063428</id>
	<title>Re:Lightweight languages do not remain lightweight</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1257104280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>``The same was said for Java. It was sold as the ultimate final language built on 50 years of accumulated knowledge of language design and computer architecture.''</p><p>Seriously? If there is anything Java and the culture around it have done wrong, it is \_not\_ learning from what came before it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` The same was said for Java .
It was sold as the ultimate final language built on 50 years of accumulated knowledge of language design and computer architecture.''Seriously ?
If there is anything Java and the culture around it have done wrong , it is \ _not \ _ learning from what came before it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``The same was said for Java.
It was sold as the ultimate final language built on 50 years of accumulated knowledge of language design and computer architecture.''Seriously?
If there is anything Java and the culture around it have done wrong, it is \_not\_ learning from what came before it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061458</id>
	<title>Brainfuck rules!</title>
	<author>xOneca</author>
	<datestamp>1257096240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I program in Brainfuck, you insensitive clod, Google!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I program in Brainfuck , you insensitive clod , Google !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I program in Brainfuck, you insensitive clod, Google!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057864</id>
	<title>Parent pretty much sums it up</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1257072120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're the only two features of Go which stand out, and I'm not sure I want either of them.</p><p>PS: While we're fixing C++ can we get rid of arrays? (ie. new[] and delete[] )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're the only two features of Go which stand out , and I 'm not sure I want either of them.PS : While we 're fixing C + + can we get rid of arrays ?
( ie. new [ ] and delete [ ] )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're the only two features of Go which stand out, and I'm not sure I want either of them.PS: While we're fixing C++ can we get rid of arrays?
(ie. new[] and delete[] )</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057168</id>
	<title>Re:fmt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257106560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I definitely prefer programming languages with concise syntax and function names. We don't need another Java.<br>Maybe someone can write a preprocessor for the folks that want to bang out source by the megabyte.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I definitely prefer programming languages with concise syntax and function names .
We do n't need another Java.Maybe someone can write a preprocessor for the folks that want to bang out source by the megabyte .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I definitely prefer programming languages with concise syntax and function names.
We don't need another Java.Maybe someone can write a preprocessor for the folks that want to bang out source by the megabyte.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057628</id>
	<title>Common words should not be used in product names</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257068880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This simply exposes the extreme lameness of allowing common words in product names. I have very limited sympathy for Mr. McCabe: naming your language with one of the most common verbs in the English language was always going to be at risk of a namespace clash. (The game is a different matter, as English was not the language of its originators.) If you work for a Bell Labs you can get away with calling a language 'C', if you are an academic you do best to use a name less likely to be taken, such as Pascal, Smalltalk.<p>Unfortunately, in the real world, Google is huge, the "Go..." bit is going to ring immediate bells. Mr. McCabe made a bad choice of language name and he should stop complaining to Google and instead change it to something else and ask them to publicise the change - which I am sure they would do, and would get him more attention.</p><p>No, I'm neither pro nor anti Google, but this is a case where realism is in order. To use the essential car analogy, suppose i was a custom builder and for years had made 10 cars a year with the model name "530". Then BMW come along with their long established 5 series and also release a 530. Is it realistic to expect BMW to change their model designation? I'm sure a lawyer would take on the case if his client had deep pockets, but his expectation of winning would be diddley squit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This simply exposes the extreme lameness of allowing common words in product names .
I have very limited sympathy for Mr. McCabe : naming your language with one of the most common verbs in the English language was always going to be at risk of a namespace clash .
( The game is a different matter , as English was not the language of its originators .
) If you work for a Bell Labs you can get away with calling a language 'C ' , if you are an academic you do best to use a name less likely to be taken , such as Pascal , Smalltalk.Unfortunately , in the real world , Google is huge , the " Go... " bit is going to ring immediate bells .
Mr. McCabe made a bad choice of language name and he should stop complaining to Google and instead change it to something else and ask them to publicise the change - which I am sure they would do , and would get him more attention.No , I 'm neither pro nor anti Google , but this is a case where realism is in order .
To use the essential car analogy , suppose i was a custom builder and for years had made 10 cars a year with the model name " 530 " .
Then BMW come along with their long established 5 series and also release a 530 .
Is it realistic to expect BMW to change their model designation ?
I 'm sure a lawyer would take on the case if his client had deep pockets , but his expectation of winning would be diddley squit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This simply exposes the extreme lameness of allowing common words in product names.
I have very limited sympathy for Mr. McCabe: naming your language with one of the most common verbs in the English language was always going to be at risk of a namespace clash.
(The game is a different matter, as English was not the language of its originators.
) If you work for a Bell Labs you can get away with calling a language 'C', if you are an academic you do best to use a name less likely to be taken, such as Pascal, Smalltalk.Unfortunately, in the real world, Google is huge, the "Go..." bit is going to ring immediate bells.
Mr. McCabe made a bad choice of language name and he should stop complaining to Google and instead change it to something else and ask them to publicise the change - which I am sure they would do, and would get him more attention.No, I'm neither pro nor anti Google, but this is a case where realism is in order.
To use the essential car analogy, suppose i was a custom builder and for years had made 10 cars a year with the model name "530".
Then BMW come along with their long established 5 series and also release a 530.
Is it realistic to expect BMW to change their model designation?
I'm sure a lawyer would take on the case if his client had deep pockets, but his expectation of winning would be diddley squit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057388</id>
	<title>Re:Sponsored by Inspector Gadget</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257109080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know what's funny? Thay you have created two goroutines or whatever.<br>This language should be awarded the most retarded language of the year award.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know what 's funny ?
Thay you have created two goroutines or whatever.This language should be awarded the most retarded language of the year award .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know what's funny?
Thay you have created two goroutines or whatever.This language should be awarded the most retarded language of the year award.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058258</id>
	<title>Re:"Systems" language?</title>
	<author>dumael</author>
	<datestamp>1257076440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nitpick, but reference counting isn't the ony form of garbage collection out there. Reference counting is actaully fairly attractive as you get very incremental collection , not simply your application freezing dead while you examine the entire heap (as android does currently, and Go's current collector).<br> <br>


Also, IBM's Recycler which they are proposing was designed by David Bacon. Some of his more recent work is on hard-real time collectors for Java.
<br>
<a href="http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/research\_projects.nsf/pages/metronome.index.html" title="ibm.com" rel="nofollow">http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/research\_projects.nsf/pages/metronome.index.html</a> [ibm.com]
<br> <br>
Finally, using the MMU on a cpu to assist with garbage collection is generally a disaster. Your program needs to be able to inspect and modify it's own page tables, or you're using the memory fault mechanism to allow the collector to progress. The first is a security + OS nightmare, and the second tends to be very slow.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nitpick , but reference counting is n't the ony form of garbage collection out there .
Reference counting is actaully fairly attractive as you get very incremental collection , not simply your application freezing dead while you examine the entire heap ( as android does currently , and Go 's current collector ) .
Also , IBM 's Recycler which they are proposing was designed by David Bacon .
Some of his more recent work is on hard-real time collectors for Java .
http : //domino.research.ibm.com/comm/research \ _projects.nsf/pages/metronome.index.html [ ibm.com ] Finally , using the MMU on a cpu to assist with garbage collection is generally a disaster .
Your program needs to be able to inspect and modify it 's own page tables , or you 're using the memory fault mechanism to allow the collector to progress .
The first is a security + OS nightmare , and the second tends to be very slow .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nitpick, but reference counting isn't the ony form of garbage collection out there.
Reference counting is actaully fairly attractive as you get very incremental collection , not simply your application freezing dead while you examine the entire heap (as android does currently, and Go's current collector).
Also, IBM's Recycler which they are proposing was designed by David Bacon.
Some of his more recent work is on hard-real time collectors for Java.
http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/research\_projects.nsf/pages/metronome.index.html [ibm.com]
 
Finally, using the MMU on a cpu to assist with garbage collection is generally a disaster.
Your program needs to be able to inspect and modify it's own page tables, or you're using the memory fault mechanism to allow the collector to progress.
The first is a security + OS nightmare, and the second tends to be very slow.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058282</id>
	<title>Naming Conventions</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1257076800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hey! At least they don't use Hungarian Notation!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey !
At least they do n't use Hungarian Notation !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey!
At least they don't use Hungarian Notation!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061994</id>
	<title>Re:C++ incomplete. C# windoz. Java slow elephant.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257098220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>C++ come on it didn't even have a string class</p></div><p>Um, no string class in C++?</p><p>std::string?</p><p>#include ?</p><p>No?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>C + + come on it did n't even have a string classUm , no string class in C + + ? std : : string ? # include ? No ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C++ come on it didn't even have a string classUm, no string class in C++?std::string?#include ?No?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059344</id>
	<title>Re:Fixes problems misguided people think C++ has.</title>
	<author>AReilly</author>
	<datestamp>1257087060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What on earth do you need multiple inheritance, virtual functions and templates for if you're writing a memory management system or interrupt handler?</p><p>The problem with C++ is that it keeps C++ programmers from moving on to more productive languages with more support for real abstractions, by having them believe that they should use it to write the tiny amount of code that would be better written in C.</p><p>Get over it: you've got a perfectly useful set of interrupt handlers and memory management in your favourite OS and runtime.  Write the useful code in something that will *leverage* that, rather than re-inventing it over and over again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What on earth do you need multiple inheritance , virtual functions and templates for if you 're writing a memory management system or interrupt handler ? The problem with C + + is that it keeps C + + programmers from moving on to more productive languages with more support for real abstractions , by having them believe that they should use it to write the tiny amount of code that would be better written in C.Get over it : you 've got a perfectly useful set of interrupt handlers and memory management in your favourite OS and runtime .
Write the useful code in something that will * leverage * that , rather than re-inventing it over and over again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What on earth do you need multiple inheritance, virtual functions and templates for if you're writing a memory management system or interrupt handler?The problem with C++ is that it keeps C++ programmers from moving on to more productive languages with more support for real abstractions, by having them believe that they should use it to write the tiny amount of code that would be better written in C.Get over it: you've got a perfectly useful set of interrupt handlers and memory management in your favourite OS and runtime.
Write the useful code in something that will *leverage* that, rather than re-inventing it over and over again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058960</id>
	<title>Not for Android</title>
	<author>Doc Ruby</author>
	<datestamp>1257083940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The compiled executables are completely native binaries, so it's not like a managed code language where the compiler generates bytecode for a virtual machine.</p></div></blockquote><p>Android, Google's OS for small/mobile devices (eg. netbooks and mobile "phones"), runs a virtual machine called "Dalvik". Android is programmed in Java source code, which is compiled into bytecode that is not Java, but specific to Dalvik. Dalvik is not a stack architecture like most virtual (and real) CPUs, but is instead a register architecture, which is more parallel.</p><p>I'm surprised that Google is releasing a whole new language that is not targeting Dalvik with generated bytecode. Especially since Go is designed for parallelism. And also since they've got Rob Pike, who helped invent Unix and its programming environment (C) that go hand in hand. Pike also devised the Limbo language, which is a bytecode generator.</p><p>Go really seems like a half measure. I wonder why they bothered.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The compiled executables are completely native binaries , so it 's not like a managed code language where the compiler generates bytecode for a virtual machine.Android , Google 's OS for small/mobile devices ( eg .
netbooks and mobile " phones " ) , runs a virtual machine called " Dalvik " .
Android is programmed in Java source code , which is compiled into bytecode that is not Java , but specific to Dalvik .
Dalvik is not a stack architecture like most virtual ( and real ) CPUs , but is instead a register architecture , which is more parallel.I 'm surprised that Google is releasing a whole new language that is not targeting Dalvik with generated bytecode .
Especially since Go is designed for parallelism .
And also since they 've got Rob Pike , who helped invent Unix and its programming environment ( C ) that go hand in hand .
Pike also devised the Limbo language , which is a bytecode generator.Go really seems like a half measure .
I wonder why they bothered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The compiled executables are completely native binaries, so it's not like a managed code language where the compiler generates bytecode for a virtual machine.Android, Google's OS for small/mobile devices (eg.
netbooks and mobile "phones"), runs a virtual machine called "Dalvik".
Android is programmed in Java source code, which is compiled into bytecode that is not Java, but specific to Dalvik.
Dalvik is not a stack architecture like most virtual (and real) CPUs, but is instead a register architecture, which is more parallel.I'm surprised that Google is releasing a whole new language that is not targeting Dalvik with generated bytecode.
Especially since Go is designed for parallelism.
And also since they've got Rob Pike, who helped invent Unix and its programming environment (C) that go hand in hand.
Pike also devised the Limbo language, which is a bytecode generator.Go really seems like a half measure.
I wonder why they bothered.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061192</id>
	<title>What has the world come to...</title>
	<author>.jc.</author>
	<datestamp>1257095040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ken Thompson, who invented Unix, creates an experimental new language with Rob Pike et. al. and Slashdotters try to overdo each other in  pissing all over it.</p><p>Nice.</p><p>Tell you what kids, try learning something for a change. And show some respect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ken Thompson , who invented Unix , creates an experimental new language with Rob Pike et .
al. and Slashdotters try to overdo each other in pissing all over it.Nice.Tell you what kids , try learning something for a change .
And show some respect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ken Thompson, who invented Unix, creates an experimental new language with Rob Pike et.
al. and Slashdotters try to overdo each other in  pissing all over it.Nice.Tell you what kids, try learning something for a change.
And show some respect.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057714</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>4D6963</author>
	<datestamp>1257069840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What? You're main problem is typos?? I code in almost nothing but C and love it, the C specification is great, but the implementation not so much. What I mean is that my debugging consists mostly of trying to improvise ways to catch memory corruption, things written where they shouldn't be written. Nothing will warn me that I'm writing outside the bounds of an array, and the few tools that are supposed to do this do this awfully unreliably. Why can't some tool just throw some warnings my way when I free an array twice, when I forgot to free an array but dereference it, go out of bounds or catch a SIGFPE?

</p><p>So yeah, C is lovely, but I'd REALLY love it if things were made easy to systematically find out what's wrong with your code, instead of waiting until you get enough sufficient crashes that you often cannot even catch with your debugger, and when you do that's of no help because your program called a function it really shouldn't have right out of nowhere becomes at some point earlier (God knows where) the program wrote something where it shouldn't have.

</p><p> <i>For that matter, why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that's already there?</i> </p><p>Again, hardly my main complaint with C, I know what you mean, but I can see an issue with that. I often copy chunks of code from a place to another and don't fix the indentational offset, so if things worked like this that'd wreak havoc. Plus, everyone has their own indentation style, so it's best if these thins don't matter to the compiler.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
You 're main problem is typos ? ?
I code in almost nothing but C and love it , the C specification is great , but the implementation not so much .
What I mean is that my debugging consists mostly of trying to improvise ways to catch memory corruption , things written where they should n't be written .
Nothing will warn me that I 'm writing outside the bounds of an array , and the few tools that are supposed to do this do this awfully unreliably .
Why ca n't some tool just throw some warnings my way when I free an array twice , when I forgot to free an array but dereference it , go out of bounds or catch a SIGFPE ?
So yeah , C is lovely , but I 'd REALLY love it if things were made easy to systematically find out what 's wrong with your code , instead of waiting until you get enough sufficient crashes that you often can not even catch with your debugger , and when you do that 's of no help because your program called a function it really should n't have right out of nowhere becomes at some point earlier ( God knows where ) the program wrote something where it should n't have .
For that matter , why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that 's already there ?
Again , hardly my main complaint with C , I know what you mean , but I can see an issue with that .
I often copy chunks of code from a place to another and do n't fix the indentational offset , so if things worked like this that 'd wreak havoc .
Plus , everyone has their own indentation style , so it 's best if these thins do n't matter to the compiler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
You're main problem is typos??
I code in almost nothing but C and love it, the C specification is great, but the implementation not so much.
What I mean is that my debugging consists mostly of trying to improvise ways to catch memory corruption, things written where they shouldn't be written.
Nothing will warn me that I'm writing outside the bounds of an array, and the few tools that are supposed to do this do this awfully unreliably.
Why can't some tool just throw some warnings my way when I free an array twice, when I forgot to free an array but dereference it, go out of bounds or catch a SIGFPE?
So yeah, C is lovely, but I'd REALLY love it if things were made easy to systematically find out what's wrong with your code, instead of waiting until you get enough sufficient crashes that you often cannot even catch with your debugger, and when you do that's of no help because your program called a function it really shouldn't have right out of nowhere becomes at some point earlier (God knows where) the program wrote something where it shouldn't have.
For that matter, why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that's already there?
Again, hardly my main complaint with C, I know what you mean, but I can see an issue with that.
I often copy chunks of code from a place to another and don't fix the indentational offset, so if things worked like this that'd wreak havoc.
Plus, everyone has their own indentation style, so it's best if these thins don't matter to the compiler.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542</id>
	<title>Google search "Go"</title>
	<author>sshore</author>
	<datestamp>1257877800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a small complaint, I'm sure.. but couldn't they have given it a name that you could, you know, Google?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a small complaint , I 'm sure.. but could n't they have given it a name that you could , you know , Google ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a small complaint, I'm sure.. but couldn't they have given it a name that you could, you know, Google?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058408</id>
	<title>Re:Fixes problems misguided people think C++ has.</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1257078480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your post makes it sound as if all language designers are ever trying to do is replace C++. As a language designer, I can tell you first hand that this is not the case, at least not for all of us. There are different kinds of programming, and it is perfectly possible for multiple programming languages to coexist, each in their own niche, without there being a question of one replacing the other.</p><p>As you yourself say:</p><blockquote><div><p>If you ARE a language inventor and reading my comment, answer this: can you write a cache/MMU interface or an interrupt handler in your language?</p></div></blockquote><p>This kind of system programming is a niche that is filled by very few programming languages. Go probably isn't one of those. I don't think C++ is, either. Python? Not even close. Does this mean the designers of these languages need to go back to the drawing board, as you say? I beg to differ. Just because you can't access low-level hardware features in them doesn't mean they aren't perfectly fine application programming languages. In fact, I would go as far as to say that, just as there are many good application programming languages that aren't suitable for systems programming, a good systems programming language usually doesn't make a great application programming language.</p><p>And there you have it. As a language designer, I design languages for particular niches. I am not trying to replace C++ or any other language so much as designing what I think will make a better language for some particular purpose. If you still want to program in C++, that's great. And maybe it is the best choice for what you are doing with it. That doesn't mean it isn't a good idea for me to design a new language.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your post makes it sound as if all language designers are ever trying to do is replace C + + .
As a language designer , I can tell you first hand that this is not the case , at least not for all of us .
There are different kinds of programming , and it is perfectly possible for multiple programming languages to coexist , each in their own niche , without there being a question of one replacing the other.As you yourself say : If you ARE a language inventor and reading my comment , answer this : can you write a cache/MMU interface or an interrupt handler in your language ? This kind of system programming is a niche that is filled by very few programming languages .
Go probably is n't one of those .
I do n't think C + + is , either .
Python ? Not even close .
Does this mean the designers of these languages need to go back to the drawing board , as you say ?
I beg to differ .
Just because you ca n't access low-level hardware features in them does n't mean they are n't perfectly fine application programming languages .
In fact , I would go as far as to say that , just as there are many good application programming languages that are n't suitable for systems programming , a good systems programming language usually does n't make a great application programming language.And there you have it .
As a language designer , I design languages for particular niches .
I am not trying to replace C + + or any other language so much as designing what I think will make a better language for some particular purpose .
If you still want to program in C + + , that 's great .
And maybe it is the best choice for what you are doing with it .
That does n't mean it is n't a good idea for me to design a new language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your post makes it sound as if all language designers are ever trying to do is replace C++.
As a language designer, I can tell you first hand that this is not the case, at least not for all of us.
There are different kinds of programming, and it is perfectly possible for multiple programming languages to coexist, each in their own niche, without there being a question of one replacing the other.As you yourself say:If you ARE a language inventor and reading my comment, answer this: can you write a cache/MMU interface or an interrupt handler in your language?This kind of system programming is a niche that is filled by very few programming languages.
Go probably isn't one of those.
I don't think C++ is, either.
Python? Not even close.
Does this mean the designers of these languages need to go back to the drawing board, as you say?
I beg to differ.
Just because you can't access low-level hardware features in them doesn't mean they aren't perfectly fine application programming languages.
In fact, I would go as far as to say that, just as there are many good application programming languages that aren't suitable for systems programming, a good systems programming language usually doesn't make a great application programming language.And there you have it.
As a language designer, I design languages for particular niches.
I am not trying to replace C++ or any other language so much as designing what I think will make a better language for some particular purpose.
If you still want to program in C++, that's great.
And maybe it is the best choice for what you are doing with it.
That doesn't mean it isn't a good idea for me to design a new language.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059156</id>
	<title>Yay!  OS Hooks!</title>
	<author>smcdow</author>
	<datestamp>1257085680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unlike some other popular languages, Go includes hooks into the OS:<p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>... the low-level, external <a href="http://golang.org/pkg/syscall/" title="golang.org">syscall package</a> [golang.org], which provides a primitive interface to the underlying operating system's calls.</p> </div><p>Finally, some sanity in language design.  syscall will no doubt be used only occasionally, but it's there if you need it and you know what you're doing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unlike some other popular languages , Go includes hooks into the OS : ... the low-level , external syscall package [ golang.org ] , which provides a primitive interface to the underlying operating system 's calls .
Finally , some sanity in language design .
syscall will no doubt be used only occasionally , but it 's there if you need it and you know what you 're doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unlike some other popular languages, Go includes hooks into the OS: ... the low-level, external syscall package [golang.org], which provides a primitive interface to the underlying operating system's calls.
Finally, some sanity in language design.
syscall will no doubt be used only occasionally, but it's there if you need it and you know what you're doing.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30072530</id>
	<title>Re:What has the world come to...</title>
	<author>blurbus</author>
	<datestamp>1258040880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sorry, but I don't worship people. I realize Ken &amp; Rob are talented. But I'm not going to genuflect every time they do something. Just because they fancy a whim to create yet another programming language like C doesn't mean I should like it. There's plenty of worthwhile things out there to learn: a lot more important and time-worthy to learn than another C-like language. Maybe they need another hobby. And maybe you need to get a life.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but I do n't worship people .
I realize Ken &amp; Rob are talented .
But I 'm not going to genuflect every time they do something .
Just because they fancy a whim to create yet another programming language like C does n't mean I should like it .
There 's plenty of worthwhile things out there to learn : a lot more important and time-worthy to learn than another C-like language .
Maybe they need another hobby .
And maybe you need to get a life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but I don't worship people.
I realize Ken &amp; Rob are talented.
But I'm not going to genuflect every time they do something.
Just because they fancy a whim to create yet another programming language like C doesn't mean I should like it.
There's plenty of worthwhile things out there to learn: a lot more important and time-worthy to learn than another C-like language.
Maybe they need another hobby.
And maybe you need to get a life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30065414</id>
	<title>Alternative names</title>
	<author>AlpineR</author>
	<datestamp>1257068700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>!Go! (since it's not Go!)<br>Goobar<br>Goooooooooooooo<br>6o<br>G0</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>! Go !
( since it 's not Go !
) GoobarGoooooooooooooo6oG0</tokentext>
<sentencetext>!Go!
(since it's not Go!
)GoobarGoooooooooooooo6oG0</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30063064</id>
	<title>Re:What has the world come to...</title>
	<author>swamp boy</author>
	<datestamp>1257102900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Tell you what kids, try learning something for a change. And show some respect.</p></div><p>And get off my lawn.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell you what kids , try learning something for a change .
And show some respect.And get off my lawn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell you what kids, try learning something for a change.
And show some respect.And get off my lawn.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30065628</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>PeanutButterBreath</author>
	<datestamp>1257070020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Like in Python?</p><p>The reason that I still like my curly-braces is that I don't want the meaning of my code to change just because somebody (me?) changed the whitespace.</p></div><p>Put a tiny amount of time into configuring your code editing environment and this is a practical non-issue.  Its not like curly-brace languages are impervious to sloppy coding.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Like in Python ? The reason that I still like my curly-braces is that I do n't want the meaning of my code to change just because somebody ( me ?
) changed the whitespace.Put a tiny amount of time into configuring your code editing environment and this is a practical non-issue .
Its not like curly-brace languages are impervious to sloppy coding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like in Python?The reason that I still like my curly-braces is that I don't want the meaning of my code to change just because somebody (me?
) changed the whitespace.Put a tiny amount of time into configuring your code editing environment and this is a practical non-issue.
Its not like curly-brace languages are impervious to sloppy coding.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056500</id>
	<title>Sponsored by Inspector Gadget</title>
	<author>Yvan256</author>
	<datestamp>1257877380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Go Go Google Language!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go Go Google Language !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go Go Google Language!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30062586</id>
	<title>Re:No templates, no party.</title>
	<author>dargaud</author>
	<datestamp>1257100800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Templates is one of C++'s advantage over any other language (except D that implements them). Without templates, type safe containers and reusable algorithms cannot be implemented.</p></div><p>Templates are nice... but do they really provide anything at all you couldn't get in C ?<br>#define MYTYPE int<br>Define all your structures and algo with MYTYPE. Then just use #define MYTYPE float or whatever you want in a new implementation. It is even type-safe.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Templates is one of C + + 's advantage over any other language ( except D that implements them ) .
Without templates , type safe containers and reusable algorithms can not be implemented.Templates are nice... but do they really provide anything at all you could n't get in C ? # define MYTYPE intDefine all your structures and algo with MYTYPE .
Then just use # define MYTYPE float or whatever you want in a new implementation .
It is even type-safe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Templates is one of C++'s advantage over any other language (except D that implements them).
Without templates, type safe containers and reusable algorithms cannot be implemented.Templates are nice... but do they really provide anything at all you couldn't get in C ?#define MYTYPE intDefine all your structures and algo with MYTYPE.
Then just use #define MYTYPE float or whatever you want in a new implementation.
It is even type-safe.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30069364</id>
	<title>Re:Build-in function library</title>
	<author>tibman</author>
	<datestamp>1257096960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those are commands, symbols for something.  They don't need to be descriptive.  You have to memorize what it is, autocomplete can't know what your intentions are.  Really, it's faster to just type the command than scroll through autocomplete options.</p><p>Gah, sorry, i'm frustrated with autocompleters.  Take someone off their VC++ and they can't write a basic Cpp program.  They don't remember the members/properties of the class they just wrote 5 minutes ago.  They type 'Object.' *pause* "no autocomplete? How am i supposed to work under these conditions?!"</p><p>Autocomplete is rotting programmer's brains!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those are commands , symbols for something .
They do n't need to be descriptive .
You have to memorize what it is , autocomplete ca n't know what your intentions are .
Really , it 's faster to just type the command than scroll through autocomplete options.Gah , sorry , i 'm frustrated with autocompleters .
Take someone off their VC + + and they ca n't write a basic Cpp program .
They do n't remember the members/properties of the class they just wrote 5 minutes ago .
They type 'Object .
' * pause * " no autocomplete ?
How am i supposed to work under these conditions ? !
" Autocomplete is rotting programmer 's brains !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those are commands, symbols for something.
They don't need to be descriptive.
You have to memorize what it is, autocomplete can't know what your intentions are.
Really, it's faster to just type the command than scroll through autocomplete options.Gah, sorry, i'm frustrated with autocompleters.
Take someone off their VC++ and they can't write a basic Cpp program.
They don't remember the members/properties of the class they just wrote 5 minutes ago.
They type 'Object.
' *pause* "no autocomplete?
How am i supposed to work under these conditions?!
"Autocomplete is rotting programmer's brains!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058504</id>
	<title>Re:Fixes problems misguided people think C++ has.</title>
	<author>RAMMS+EIN</author>
	<datestamp>1257079440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>``All that just goes away with garbage collection. Sure, if you're writing Doom 8 you probably need to squeeze every cycle out of your PC...''</p><p>and even then, you shouldn't assume that foregoing garbage collection is the way to go.</p><p>After all, manual memory management means code needs to be run every time the last reference to a chunk of allocated memory is lost. With automatic memory management, there is no such requirement. And indeed, some studies have found automatic memory management to actually outperform manual memory management.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>` ` All that just goes away with garbage collection .
Sure , if you 're writing Doom 8 you probably need to squeeze every cycle out of your PC...''and even then , you should n't assume that foregoing garbage collection is the way to go.After all , manual memory management means code needs to be run every time the last reference to a chunk of allocated memory is lost .
With automatic memory management , there is no such requirement .
And indeed , some studies have found automatic memory management to actually outperform manual memory management .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>``All that just goes away with garbage collection.
Sure, if you're writing Doom 8 you probably need to squeeze every cycle out of your PC...''and even then, you shouldn't assume that foregoing garbage collection is the way to go.After all, manual memory management means code needs to be run every time the last reference to a chunk of allocated memory is lost.
With automatic memory management, there is no such requirement.
And indeed, some studies have found automatic memory management to actually outperform manual memory management.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057012</id>
	<title>Re:C++ incomplete. C# windoz. Java slow elephant.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257882300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>C++ come on it didn't even have a string class. Thus pointer math hell.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm not going to suggest you <em>should</em> use C++ but seriously, can you at least use <em>real</em> criticism? What is <a href="http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/string/string/" title="cplusplus.com" rel="nofollow">std::string</a> [cplusplus.com] then?</p><p>And no, "that was only added in 1995" doesn't count as a criticism since C++ was not defined as an ISO standard until 1998 and std::string has been there ever since.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>C + + come on it did n't even have a string class .
Thus pointer math hell.I 'm not going to suggest you should use C + + but seriously , can you at least use real criticism ?
What is std : : string [ cplusplus.com ] then ? And no , " that was only added in 1995 " does n't count as a criticism since C + + was not defined as an ISO standard until 1998 and std : : string has been there ever since .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C++ come on it didn't even have a string class.
Thus pointer math hell.I'm not going to suggest you should use C++ but seriously, can you at least use real criticism?
What is std::string [cplusplus.com] then?And no, "that was only added in 1995" doesn't count as a criticism since C++ was not defined as an ISO standard until 1998 and std::string has been there ever since.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058362</id>
	<title>Blocked in Syria</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257077880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What kind of an "open" language is it, if it's website is blocked in Syria (and probably the rest of USA's embargoed countries)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What kind of an " open " language is it , if it 's website is blocked in Syria ( and probably the rest of USA 's embargoed countries )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What kind of an "open" language is it, if it's website is blocked in Syria (and probably the rest of USA's embargoed countries)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058232</id>
	<title>maybe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257076260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll learn it on the go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll learn it on the go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll learn it on the go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30062478</id>
	<title>Re:Attempting to install it...</title>
	<author>MobyDisk</author>
	<datestamp>1257100260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It can't find<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/passwd,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/group or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/hosts</p></div><p>Are you installing a programming language or a rootkit?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It ca n't find /etc/passwd , /etc/group or /etc/hostsAre you installing a programming language or a rootkit ?
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It can't find /etc/passwd, /etc/group or /etc/hostsAre you installing a programming language or a rootkit?
:-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30065110</id>
	<title>Re:So depressing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257067440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Programs that are written in flat ASCII files, it all makes me sick.</i></p><p>There's plenty of languages that don't use flat ASCII files. They don't get anywhere because they're inherently ghettoized. It's hard to even talk *about* Smalltalk, for example, without digressions about the workspaces and the GUI... even though these are the least interesting features of the language itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Programs that are written in flat ASCII files , it all makes me sick.There 's plenty of languages that do n't use flat ASCII files .
They do n't get anywhere because they 're inherently ghettoized .
It 's hard to even talk * about * Smalltalk , for example , without digressions about the workspaces and the GUI... even though these are the least interesting features of the language itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Programs that are written in flat ASCII files, it all makes me sick.There's plenty of languages that don't use flat ASCII files.
They don't get anywhere because they're inherently ghettoized.
It's hard to even talk *about* Smalltalk, for example, without digressions about the workspaces and the GUI... even though these are the least interesting features of the language itself.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30062864</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30068522</id>
	<title>Re:What has the world come to...</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1257087480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Ken Thompson, who invented Unix..."</p><p>Yes... about that.... the problem is, Unix isn't exactly the best designed OS of all time. It's there, and it runs, but it's not necessarily pretty.</p><p>It survived, like C, so that says something... but mostly about how abysmally awful all the other alternatives have been.</p><p>Go looks like a small step forward, in some ways, but... sigh. Better, but so little better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Ken Thompson , who invented Unix... " Yes... about that.... the problem is , Unix is n't exactly the best designed OS of all time .
It 's there , and it runs , but it 's not necessarily pretty.It survived , like C , so that says something... but mostly about how abysmally awful all the other alternatives have been.Go looks like a small step forward , in some ways , but... sigh. Better , but so little better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Ken Thompson, who invented Unix..."Yes... about that.... the problem is, Unix isn't exactly the best designed OS of all time.
It's there, and it runs, but it's not necessarily pretty.It survived, like C, so that says something... but mostly about how abysmally awful all the other alternatives have been.Go looks like a small step forward, in some ways, but... sigh. Better, but so little better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056692</id>
	<title>Re:Google search "Go"</title>
	<author>cheesecake23</author>
	<datestamp>1257878940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It's a small complaint, I'm sure.. but couldn't they have given it a name that you could, you know, Google?</p></div><p>Yeah, why couldn't they use unambiguous names like all other programming languages, like C, Java, Python and Ruby?
</p><p>
Sarcasm aside, I agree that the naming is unfortunate (although I love <a href="http://golang.org/doc/go\_faq.html#What\_is\_the\_origin\_of\_the\_name" title="golang.org" rel="nofollow">the Go Ogle debugger pun</a> [golang.org]). The parent was probably referring to the common verb, but this will also make it much harder for Go players like myself to find books and stuff for the board game. <a href="http://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=9&amp;colspec=ID\%20Type\%20Status\%20Owner\%20Summary" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">This guy</a> [google.com] isn't happy either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a small complaint , I 'm sure.. but could n't they have given it a name that you could , you know , Google ? Yeah , why could n't they use unambiguous names like all other programming languages , like C , Java , Python and Ruby ?
Sarcasm aside , I agree that the naming is unfortunate ( although I love the Go Ogle debugger pun [ golang.org ] ) .
The parent was probably referring to the common verb , but this will also make it much harder for Go players like myself to find books and stuff for the board game .
This guy [ google.com ] is n't happy either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a small complaint, I'm sure.. but couldn't they have given it a name that you could, you know, Google?Yeah, why couldn't they use unambiguous names like all other programming languages, like C, Java, Python and Ruby?
Sarcasm aside, I agree that the naming is unfortunate (although I love the Go Ogle debugger pun [golang.org]).
The parent was probably referring to the common verb, but this will also make it much harder for Go players like myself to find books and stuff for the board game.
This guy [google.com] isn't happy either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059534</id>
	<title>Re:Holy Shitbags Binaries Are Static And *Huge*</title>
	<author>Cthefuture</author>
	<datestamp>1257088020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh, so they don't have a dynamic linker yet.  Consider this:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>$ cat hello.c<br>#include </p><p>int main(int argc, char* argv[])<br>{<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; printf("Hello, world!");</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; return 0;<br>}</p><p>$ gcc -O2 -static hello.c</p></div><p>a.out is 688272 bytes (x64\_64 Linux)</p><p>Until they have a dynamic linking system, who knows.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh , so they do n't have a dynamic linker yet .
Consider this : $ cat hello.c # include int main ( int argc , char * argv [ ] ) {       printf ( " Hello , world !
" ) ;       return 0 ; } $ gcc -O2 -static hello.ca.out is 688272 bytes ( x64 \ _64 Linux ) Until they have a dynamic linking system , who knows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh, so they don't have a dynamic linker yet.
Consider this:$ cat hello.c#include int main(int argc, char* argv[]){
      printf("Hello, world!
");
      return 0;}$ gcc -O2 -static hello.ca.out is 688272 bytes (x64\_64 Linux)Until they have a dynamic linking system, who knows.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060508</id>
	<title>Re:fmt</title>
	<author>Chickencha</author>
	<datestamp>1257092340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So just use<p><div class="quote"><p>import format "fmt"</p></div><p>instead of</p><p><div class="quote"><p>import "fmt"</p></div><p>and you can write</p><p><div class="quote"><p>format.Printf("Yay");</p></div><p>to your heart's content.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So just useimport format " fmt " instead ofimport " fmt " and you can writeformat.Printf ( " Yay " ) ; to your heart 's content .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So just useimport format "fmt"instead ofimport "fmt"and you can writeformat.Printf("Yay");to your heart's content.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059674</id>
	<title>Re:Not Invented Here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257088620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rumors? I thought they already announced Chromatic a while back. Or were going to announce it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rumors ?
I thought they already announced Chromatic a while back .
Or were going to announce it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rumors?
I thought they already announced Chromatic a while back.
Or were going to announce it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057422</id>
	<title>Re:Google search "Go"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257066420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's already a Go! programming language for that matter. You'd think Google would have Googled Go.

<a href="http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=998367" title="acm.org" rel="nofollow">http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=998367</a> [acm.org]

<a href="http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/lets-go/641689" title="lulu.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/lets-go/641689</a> [lulu.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's already a Go !
programming language for that matter .
You 'd think Google would have Googled Go .
http : //portal.acm.org/citation.cfm ? id = 998367 [ acm.org ] http : //www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/lets-go/641689 [ lulu.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's already a Go!
programming language for that matter.
You'd think Google would have Googled Go.
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=998367 [acm.org]

http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/lets-go/641689 [lulu.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064908</id>
	<title>Re:No exceptions? Really?</title>
	<author>SlashDotDotDot</author>
	<datestamp>1257066480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Go seems to suffer from the problem of not being done. Case in point: exceptions.</p></div><p>The authors at least partly agree with you.  They describe the absence of exceptions <a href="http://golang.org/doc/go\_lang\_faq.html#absent\_features" title="golang.org">here</a> [golang.org].  They consider it to be an open issue.</p><p>On the other hand, they already provide an alternative to the "finally" block of an exception handler: the <a href="http://golang.org/doc/go\_spec.html#Defer\_statements" title="golang.org">defer keyword</a> [golang.org].  I like the looks of this, as it means you can handle all of your closing and locking kinds of issues in a direct pairing with the corresponding open or lock, regardless of whether the function terminates early due to error conditions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go seems to suffer from the problem of not being done .
Case in point : exceptions.The authors at least partly agree with you .
They describe the absence of exceptions here [ golang.org ] .
They consider it to be an open issue.On the other hand , they already provide an alternative to the " finally " block of an exception handler : the defer keyword [ golang.org ] .
I like the looks of this , as it means you can handle all of your closing and locking kinds of issues in a direct pairing with the corresponding open or lock , regardless of whether the function terminates early due to error conditions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go seems to suffer from the problem of not being done.
Case in point: exceptions.The authors at least partly agree with you.
They describe the absence of exceptions here [golang.org].
They consider it to be an open issue.On the other hand, they already provide an alternative to the "finally" block of an exception handler: the defer keyword [golang.org].
I like the looks of this, as it means you can handle all of your closing and locking kinds of issues in a direct pairing with the corresponding open or lock, regardless of whether the function terminates early due to error conditions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060840</id>
	<title>Re:Build-in function library</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257093660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>And let's not forget the utterly dreadful naming standards used. So you get crappy "DOS" style abbreviated function names like "str\_replace", "str\_split" and "strcmp" instead of something meaningful like "StringReplace", "StringSplit" and "StringCompare".<br>
<br>
It's high time that programmers stop using crappy abbreviations for names in programming. We're not dealing with DOS systems with 8.3 filename limitations and there's no call for laziness.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Function names have exactly NOTHING to do with DOS filenames. They were usually abbreviated because memory and disk space were tight, regardless of your OS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And let 's not forget the utterly dreadful naming standards used .
So you get crappy " DOS " style abbreviated function names like " str \ _replace " , " str \ _split " and " strcmp " instead of something meaningful like " StringReplace " , " StringSplit " and " StringCompare " .
It 's high time that programmers stop using crappy abbreviations for names in programming .
We 're not dealing with DOS systems with 8.3 filename limitations and there 's no call for laziness .
Function names have exactly NOTHING to do with DOS filenames .
They were usually abbreviated because memory and disk space were tight , regardless of your OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And let's not forget the utterly dreadful naming standards used.
So you get crappy "DOS" style abbreviated function names like "str\_replace", "str\_split" and "strcmp" instead of something meaningful like "StringReplace", "StringSplit" and "StringCompare".
It's high time that programmers stop using crappy abbreviations for names in programming.
We're not dealing with DOS systems with 8.3 filename limitations and there's no call for laziness.
Function names have exactly NOTHING to do with DOS filenames.
They were usually abbreviated because memory and disk space were tight, regardless of your OS.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058338</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057772</id>
	<title>Re:Build-in function library</title>
	<author>jez9999</author>
	<datestamp>1257070680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>And every Perl module I've pulled from CPAN has been well documented.</i></p><p>What packages have you pulled in from CPAN?  As much as I like Perl and as painful as this is to say, CPAN is a fucking abomination.  There is basically zero quality control, anyone can put any module up they want and use any namespace.  They don't have to offer ANY documentation and if they go AWOL and stop maintaining the module, it just stays there, festering.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And every Perl module I 've pulled from CPAN has been well documented.What packages have you pulled in from CPAN ?
As much as I like Perl and as painful as this is to say , CPAN is a fucking abomination .
There is basically zero quality control , anyone can put any module up they want and use any namespace .
They do n't have to offer ANY documentation and if they go AWOL and stop maintaining the module , it just stays there , festering .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And every Perl module I've pulled from CPAN has been well documented.What packages have you pulled in from CPAN?
As much as I like Perl and as painful as this is to say, CPAN is a fucking abomination.
There is basically zero quality control, anyone can put any module up they want and use any namespace.
They don't have to offer ANY documentation and if they go AWOL and stop maintaining the module, it just stays there, festering.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059602</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257088320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, I've written a parser.</p><p>Why are we still defining code chunks via brackets? Because we're fucking idiots, apparently.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I 've written a parser.Why are we still defining code chunks via brackets ?
Because we 're fucking idiots , apparently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I've written a parser.Why are we still defining code chunks via brackets?
Because we're fucking idiots, apparently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30068694</id>
	<title>first impressions</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1257089280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It seems like a variant of aleph, a Plan 9 language.</p><p>It's not bad, and I think it's a worthy replacement for C.</p><p>They really need to work on their installs.  Having different compiler names for different target platforms is silly.  And having a build process that requires the user to set environment variables is equally silly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems like a variant of aleph , a Plan 9 language.It 's not bad , and I think it 's a worthy replacement for C.They really need to work on their installs .
Having different compiler names for different target platforms is silly .
And having a build process that requires the user to set environment variables is equally silly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems like a variant of aleph, a Plan 9 language.It's not bad, and I think it's a worthy replacement for C.They really need to work on their installs.
Having different compiler names for different target platforms is silly.
And having a build process that requires the user to set environment variables is equally silly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30069512</id>
	<title>Copy Paste Much?</title>
	<author>Buttink</author>
	<datestamp>1257098460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Java + C + Ada + Erlang = Go lol</htmltext>
<tokenext>Java + C + Ada + Erlang = Go lol</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Java + C + Ada + Erlang = Go lol</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060042</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257090180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;One of the earlier languages had position dependent coding (code had to start on column 3 or something like that. The name eludes me at the moment).</p><p>You're talking about glorious Fortran, the language of the old Gods</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; One of the earlier languages had position dependent coding ( code had to start on column 3 or something like that .
The name eludes me at the moment ) .You 're talking about glorious Fortran , the language of the old Gods</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;One of the earlier languages had position dependent coding (code had to start on column 3 or something like that.
The name eludes me at the moment).You're talking about glorious Fortran, the language of the old Gods</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060848</id>
	<title>Re:Build-in function library</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1257093720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it is not embedded, and there are libraries.</p><p>see the example web server in ~30 lines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it is not embedded , and there are libraries.see the example web server in ~ 30 lines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it is not embedded, and there are libraries.see the example web server in ~30 lines.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057758</id>
	<title>Re:fmt</title>
	<author>jez9999</author>
	<datestamp>1257070560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agrd.2 much txt is bd,we nd 2 mk stf + concise,btr 4 usng  storage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agrd.2 much txt is bd,we nd 2 mk stf + concise,btr 4 usng storage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agrd.2 much txt is bd,we nd 2 mk stf + concise,btr 4 usng  storage.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057168</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057638</id>
	<title>Re:Google search "Go"</title>
	<author>w0mprat</author>
	<datestamp>1257069000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>GoL?
<br> <br>
(spanish: Goal)
<br> <br>
gol en propia meta!
(spanish: Own goal!)</htmltext>
<tokenext>GoL ?
( spanish : Goal ) gol en propia meta !
( spanish : Own goal !
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GoL?
(spanish: Goal)
 
gol en propia meta!
(spanish: Own goal!
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057912</id>
	<title>Re:"Systems" language?</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1257072840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just going by the comments here, it sounds like another tweaked C.  Purpose-built for Google?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just going by the comments here , it sounds like another tweaked C. Purpose-built for Google ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just going by the comments here, it sounds like another tweaked C.  Purpose-built for Google?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058716</id>
	<title>Re:fmt</title>
	<author>egr</author>
	<datestamp>1257081780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That doesn't bother me much, what does is that some lines have semicolon and some don't.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That does n't bother me much , what does is that some lines have semicolon and some do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That doesn't bother me much, what does is that some lines have semicolon and some don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057686</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257069540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>if I accidentally type "plaeyrArray" instead of "playerArray," the whole world is clearly on fire and everyone is going to die.</p></div><p>I know what you're saying, but I think the answer is broadly that you might have meant plaeyrArray. Every so often xkcd nails one, and there's one that says "You'll never find a programming language that frees you from the burden of clarifying your ideas." It's because computers will do anything that you ask them to that you have to be so specific. And I'm sure you know that, but it's worth pointing out. Language designed to be easy, like VB, end up being almost unusable for certain tasks because their treatment of basic stuff creates lots of little edge cases. Is this a zero or a null? I don't know...what does the language think it should be in this context?</p><p>PHP is pretty tolerant of little faults, but it's also a huge mess. I haven't used it a whole lot and just recently found out my program's been logging warnings like crazy because I didn't initialize a variable, but PHP only warns you over this. Not the end of the world, but I find it annoying. It's more important for a language to be consistent, I think...when you try to make it "intuitive" you end up with a subjectivity problem. Everyone has a different mind and they all want you to read them. Then the next guy (probably me) says "why in the hell would it work like THAT?". But consistency can be quantified.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Why can't compilers be more intelligent about the types of errors they encounter in routine usage? For that matter, why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that's already there?</p></div><p>I'm not being facetious when I suggest that you immediately play around with Python. It's not just the whitespace thing, but it happens to be indicative of why Python's such a joy. You're already delimiting spaces with an LF character, so aren't you just repeating yourself with a semi-colon? Of course you are. Taking it further: in Python you can still put two lines of code in one line of text, just like any other language, and you can also break one line onto two. But it's treated as the exception (which it is), rather than the rule, and for things not already enclosed in parentheses, you break them onto two lines by (wait for it...) escaping the LF! I dunno, there's something about that that just makes me smile. Python is full of neat little things like that.</p><p>Not to mention an extensive standard library with the documentation baked in, built-in debugging and profiling tools, and an interactive prompt for testing out one-liners and reading the docs. It doesn't seem like it at first but you end up missing the prompt dearly when you code in other languages.</p><p>Obviously language syntax isn't, or shouldn't be, a dealbreaker, and Python already gets too much press for being a language where whitespace matters when that's not a big deal, so please don't misunderstand my reason for bringing it up. I just find that it's representative of the whole picture: Python makes things simple that should be simple, but not by being inconsistent.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>if I accidentally type " plaeyrArray " instead of " playerArray , " the whole world is clearly on fire and everyone is going to die.I know what you 're saying , but I think the answer is broadly that you might have meant plaeyrArray .
Every so often xkcd nails one , and there 's one that says " You 'll never find a programming language that frees you from the burden of clarifying your ideas .
" It 's because computers will do anything that you ask them to that you have to be so specific .
And I 'm sure you know that , but it 's worth pointing out .
Language designed to be easy , like VB , end up being almost unusable for certain tasks because their treatment of basic stuff creates lots of little edge cases .
Is this a zero or a null ?
I do n't know...what does the language think it should be in this context ? PHP is pretty tolerant of little faults , but it 's also a huge mess .
I have n't used it a whole lot and just recently found out my program 's been logging warnings like crazy because I did n't initialize a variable , but PHP only warns you over this .
Not the end of the world , but I find it annoying .
It 's more important for a language to be consistent , I think...when you try to make it " intuitive " you end up with a subjectivity problem .
Everyone has a different mind and they all want you to read them .
Then the next guy ( probably me ) says " why in the hell would it work like THAT ? " .
But consistency can be quantified.Why ca n't compilers be more intelligent about the types of errors they encounter in routine usage ?
For that matter , why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that 's already there ? I 'm not being facetious when I suggest that you immediately play around with Python .
It 's not just the whitespace thing , but it happens to be indicative of why Python 's such a joy .
You 're already delimiting spaces with an LF character , so are n't you just repeating yourself with a semi-colon ?
Of course you are .
Taking it further : in Python you can still put two lines of code in one line of text , just like any other language , and you can also break one line onto two .
But it 's treated as the exception ( which it is ) , rather than the rule , and for things not already enclosed in parentheses , you break them onto two lines by ( wait for it... ) escaping the LF !
I dunno , there 's something about that that just makes me smile .
Python is full of neat little things like that.Not to mention an extensive standard library with the documentation baked in , built-in debugging and profiling tools , and an interactive prompt for testing out one-liners and reading the docs .
It does n't seem like it at first but you end up missing the prompt dearly when you code in other languages.Obviously language syntax is n't , or should n't be , a dealbreaker , and Python already gets too much press for being a language where whitespace matters when that 's not a big deal , so please do n't misunderstand my reason for bringing it up .
I just find that it 's representative of the whole picture : Python makes things simple that should be simple , but not by being inconsistent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if I accidentally type "plaeyrArray" instead of "playerArray," the whole world is clearly on fire and everyone is going to die.I know what you're saying, but I think the answer is broadly that you might have meant plaeyrArray.
Every so often xkcd nails one, and there's one that says "You'll never find a programming language that frees you from the burden of clarifying your ideas.
" It's because computers will do anything that you ask them to that you have to be so specific.
And I'm sure you know that, but it's worth pointing out.
Language designed to be easy, like VB, end up being almost unusable for certain tasks because their treatment of basic stuff creates lots of little edge cases.
Is this a zero or a null?
I don't know...what does the language think it should be in this context?PHP is pretty tolerant of little faults, but it's also a huge mess.
I haven't used it a whole lot and just recently found out my program's been logging warnings like crazy because I didn't initialize a variable, but PHP only warns you over this.
Not the end of the world, but I find it annoying.
It's more important for a language to be consistent, I think...when you try to make it "intuitive" you end up with a subjectivity problem.
Everyone has a different mind and they all want you to read them.
Then the next guy (probably me) says "why in the hell would it work like THAT?".
But consistency can be quantified.Why can't compilers be more intelligent about the types of errors they encounter in routine usage?
For that matter, why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that's already there?I'm not being facetious when I suggest that you immediately play around with Python.
It's not just the whitespace thing, but it happens to be indicative of why Python's such a joy.
You're already delimiting spaces with an LF character, so aren't you just repeating yourself with a semi-colon?
Of course you are.
Taking it further: in Python you can still put two lines of code in one line of text, just like any other language, and you can also break one line onto two.
But it's treated as the exception (which it is), rather than the rule, and for things not already enclosed in parentheses, you break them onto two lines by (wait for it...) escaping the LF!
I dunno, there's something about that that just makes me smile.
Python is full of neat little things like that.Not to mention an extensive standard library with the documentation baked in, built-in debugging and profiling tools, and an interactive prompt for testing out one-liners and reading the docs.
It doesn't seem like it at first but you end up missing the prompt dearly when you code in other languages.Obviously language syntax isn't, or shouldn't be, a dealbreaker, and Python already gets too much press for being a language where whitespace matters when that's not a big deal, so please don't misunderstand my reason for bringing it up.
I just find that it's representative of the whole picture: Python makes things simple that should be simple, but not by being inconsistent.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30065016</id>
	<title>Re:No templates, no party.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257067020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Templates is one of C++'s advantage over any other language (except D that implements them). Without templates, type safe containers and reusable algorithms cannot be implemented.</p> </div><p>And except, of course, ADA, where the syntax came from, and all the other languages that had templates long time before C++.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Templates is one of C + + 's advantage over any other language ( except D that implements them ) .
Without templates , type safe containers and reusable algorithms can not be implemented .
And except , of course , ADA , where the syntax came from , and all the other languages that had templates long time before C + + .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Templates is one of C++'s advantage over any other language (except D that implements them).
Without templates, type safe containers and reusable algorithms cannot be implemented.
And except, of course, ADA, where the syntax came from, and all the other languages that had templates long time before C++.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064236</id>
	<title>Re:No exceptions? Really?</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1257106920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Exceptions are only critical in a programming language if your programming style needs them.  Once you learn to program without them, they don't matter so much. There are other ways to deal with exceptional conditions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Exceptions are only critical in a programming language if your programming style needs them .
Once you learn to program without them , they do n't matter so much .
There are other ways to deal with exceptional conditions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exceptions are only critical in a programming language if your programming style needs them.
Once you learn to program without them, they don't matter so much.
There are other ways to deal with exceptional conditions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059086</id>
	<title>Single-language platforms</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1257085080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Heres a novel idea. Use a language as a tool, and use the right tool for the job.</p></div><p>Then platform makers should stop building around single languages when the language isn't the perfect tool for every application. For example, programs for "feature phones" must be written in Java (or a language trivially decompilable to Java), programs for Xbox 360's XNA must be written in C# (or a language trivially decompilable to C#), and programs for iPhone must be written in Objective-C.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Heres a novel idea .
Use a language as a tool , and use the right tool for the job.Then platform makers should stop building around single languages when the language is n't the perfect tool for every application .
For example , programs for " feature phones " must be written in Java ( or a language trivially decompilable to Java ) , programs for Xbox 360 's XNA must be written in C # ( or a language trivially decompilable to C # ) , and programs for iPhone must be written in Objective-C .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Heres a novel idea.
Use a language as a tool, and use the right tool for the job.Then platform makers should stop building around single languages when the language isn't the perfect tool for every application.
For example, programs for "feature phones" must be written in Java (or a language trivially decompilable to Java), programs for Xbox 360's XNA must be written in C# (or a language trivially decompilable to C#), and programs for iPhone must be written in Objective-C.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057430</id>
	<title>Re:Attempting to install it...</title>
	<author>dbcad7</author>
	<datestamp>1257066420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Permissions problem maybe ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Permissions problem maybe ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Permissions problem maybe ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30062504</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>fph il quozientatore</author>
	<datestamp>1257100380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You know, I am desperately trying to forget about FORTRAN too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , I am desperately trying to forget about FORTRAN too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, I am desperately trying to forget about FORTRAN too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058874</id>
	<title>Garbage collectoin latency</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1257083160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>but if you're writing e.g. desktop productivity software, does it really matter that you spend 3\% of your application time in the GC?</p></div><p>It matters if the 3\% of application time happens all at once, making the application appear to be frozen, while the user is waiting to be able to do something. A runtime environment's garbage collector needs to be incremental, invisible, and concurrent, or the same implementation issues that you restrict to Doom 8 will start showing up in Word 15.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but if you 're writing e.g .
desktop productivity software , does it really matter that you spend 3 \ % of your application time in the GC ? It matters if the 3 \ % of application time happens all at once , making the application appear to be frozen , while the user is waiting to be able to do something .
A runtime environment 's garbage collector needs to be incremental , invisible , and concurrent , or the same implementation issues that you restrict to Doom 8 will start showing up in Word 15 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but if you're writing e.g.
desktop productivity software, does it really matter that you spend 3\% of your application time in the GC?It matters if the 3\% of application time happens all at once, making the application appear to be frozen, while the user is waiting to be able to do something.
A runtime environment's garbage collector needs to be incremental, invisible, and concurrent, or the same implementation issues that you restrict to Doom 8 will start showing up in Word 15.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057472</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056652</id>
	<title>Named after the most difficult-to-master game ever</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1257878640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This bodes well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This bodes well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This bodes well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060324</id>
	<title>Re:C++ incomplete. C# windoz. Java slow elephant.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257091440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever heard of std::string and all the rest of the very well designed standard library? In fact I would risk to say, one of C++ greatest assets was the vision and cleverness of stepanov when we created the concepts  that later became  the standard library.</p><p>
&nbsp; Now  how many languages have a standard implementation of the swap mechanic?  Like std::swap? Something even more basic on conceptual level?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever heard of std : : string and all the rest of the very well designed standard library ?
In fact I would risk to say , one of C + + greatest assets was the vision and cleverness of stepanov when we created the concepts that later became the standard library .
  Now how many languages have a standard implementation of the swap mechanic ?
Like std : : swap ?
Something even more basic on conceptual level ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever heard of std::string and all the rest of the very well designed standard library?
In fact I would risk to say, one of C++ greatest assets was the vision and cleverness of stepanov when we created the concepts  that later became  the standard library.
  Now  how many languages have a standard implementation of the swap mechanic?
Like std::swap?
Something even more basic on conceptual level?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30063446</id>
	<title>Re:What has the world come to...</title>
	<author>BitHive</author>
	<datestamp>1257104340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's harder for people to show how smart they are by reflecting on things carefully and making posts that add to the discussion.  Heck, they might even have to face the fact that they don't know enough to contribute anything meaningful.  Shitposting is a good way to not face that reality, and go on about your smug day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's harder for people to show how smart they are by reflecting on things carefully and making posts that add to the discussion .
Heck , they might even have to face the fact that they do n't know enough to contribute anything meaningful .
Shitposting is a good way to not face that reality , and go on about your smug day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's harder for people to show how smart they are by reflecting on things carefully and making posts that add to the discussion.
Heck, they might even have to face the fact that they don't know enough to contribute anything meaningful.
Shitposting is a good way to not face that reality, and go on about your smug day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060398</id>
	<title>Re:Build-in function library</title>
	<author>cavemanf16</author>
	<datestamp>1257091740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://processing.org/about/" title="processing.org" rel="nofollow">Processing 1.0</a> [processing.org] fill your needs?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Processing 1.0 [ processing.org ] fill your needs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Processing 1.0 [processing.org] fill your needs?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058348</id>
	<title>Re:No templates, no party.</title>
	<author>daid303</author>
	<datestamp>1257077760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>../test.cpp: In destructor &lsquo;std::pair::~pair()&rsquo;:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/include/c++/4.3/bits/stl\_pair.h:73:   instantiated from &lsquo;void \_\_gnu\_cxx::new\_allocator::destroy(\_Tp*) [with \_Tp = std::pair]&rsquo;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/include/c++/4.3/bits/stl\_tree.h:390:   instantiated from &lsquo;void std::\_Rb\_tree::\_M\_destroy\_node(std::\_Rb\_tree\_node*) [with \_Key = int, \_Val = std::pair, \_KeyOfValue = std::\_Select1st &gt;, \_Compare = std::less, \_Alloc = std::allocator &gt;]&rsquo;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/include/c++/4.3/bits/stl\_tree.h:943:   instantiated from &lsquo;void std::\_Rb\_tree::\_M\_erase(std::\_Rb\_tree\_node*) [with \_Key = int, \_Val = std::pair, \_KeyOfValue = std::\_Select1st &gt;, \_Compare = std::less, \_Alloc = std::allocator &gt;]&rsquo;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/include/c++/4.3/bits/stl\_tree.h:585:   instantiated from &lsquo;std::\_Rb\_tree::~\_Rb\_tree() [with \_Key = int, \_Val = std::pair, \_KeyOfValue = std::\_Select1st &gt;, \_Compare = std::less, \_Alloc = std::allocator &gt;]&rsquo;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/include/c++/4.3/bits/stl\_map.h:92:   instantiated from here<nobr> <wbr></nobr>../test.cpp:11: error: &lsquo;testObj::~testObj()&rsquo; is private<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/include/c++/4.3/bits/stl\_pair.h:73: error: within this context<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/include/c++/4.3/ext/new\_allocator.h: In member function &lsquo;void \_\_gnu\_cxx::new\_allocator::destroy(\_Tp*) [with \_Tp = std::pair]&rsquo;:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/include/c++/4.3/ext/new\_allocator.h:118: note: synthesized method &lsquo;std::pair::~pair()&rsquo; first required here</p><p>Because templates are wonderful!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>../test.cpp : In destructor    std : : pair : : ~ pair ( )    : /usr/include/c + + /4.3/bits/stl \ _pair.h : 73 : instantiated from    void \ _ \ _gnu \ _cxx : : new \ _allocator : : destroy ( \ _Tp * ) [ with \ _Tp = std : : pair ]    /usr/include/c + + /4.3/bits/stl \ _tree.h : 390 : instantiated from    void std : : \ _Rb \ _tree : : \ _M \ _destroy \ _node ( std : : \ _Rb \ _tree \ _node * ) [ with \ _Key = int , \ _Val = std : : pair , \ _KeyOfValue = std : : \ _Select1st &gt; , \ _Compare = std : : less , \ _Alloc = std : : allocator &gt; ]    /usr/include/c + + /4.3/bits/stl \ _tree.h : 943 : instantiated from    void std : : \ _Rb \ _tree : : \ _M \ _erase ( std : : \ _Rb \ _tree \ _node * ) [ with \ _Key = int , \ _Val = std : : pair , \ _KeyOfValue = std : : \ _Select1st &gt; , \ _Compare = std : : less , \ _Alloc = std : : allocator &gt; ]    /usr/include/c + + /4.3/bits/stl \ _tree.h : 585 : instantiated from    std : : \ _Rb \ _tree : : ~ \ _Rb \ _tree ( ) [ with \ _Key = int , \ _Val = std : : pair , \ _KeyOfValue = std : : \ _Select1st &gt; , \ _Compare = std : : less , \ _Alloc = std : : allocator &gt; ]    /usr/include/c + + /4.3/bits/stl \ _map.h : 92 : instantiated from here ../test.cpp : 11 : error :    testObj : : ~ testObj ( )    is private /usr/include/c + + /4.3/bits/stl \ _pair.h : 73 : error : within this context /usr/include/c + + /4.3/ext/new \ _allocator.h : In member function    void \ _ \ _gnu \ _cxx : : new \ _allocator : : destroy ( \ _Tp * ) [ with \ _Tp = std : : pair ]    : /usr/include/c + + /4.3/ext/new \ _allocator.h : 118 : note : synthesized method    std : : pair : : ~ pair ( )    first required hereBecause templates are wonderful !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>../test.cpp: In destructor ‘std::pair::~pair()’: /usr/include/c++/4.3/bits/stl\_pair.h:73:   instantiated from ‘void \_\_gnu\_cxx::new\_allocator::destroy(\_Tp*) [with \_Tp = std::pair]’ /usr/include/c++/4.3/bits/stl\_tree.h:390:   instantiated from ‘void std::\_Rb\_tree::\_M\_destroy\_node(std::\_Rb\_tree\_node*) [with \_Key = int, \_Val = std::pair, \_KeyOfValue = std::\_Select1st &gt;, \_Compare = std::less, \_Alloc = std::allocator &gt;]’ /usr/include/c++/4.3/bits/stl\_tree.h:943:   instantiated from ‘void std::\_Rb\_tree::\_M\_erase(std::\_Rb\_tree\_node*) [with \_Key = int, \_Val = std::pair, \_KeyOfValue = std::\_Select1st &gt;, \_Compare = std::less, \_Alloc = std::allocator &gt;]’ /usr/include/c++/4.3/bits/stl\_tree.h:585:   instantiated from ‘std::\_Rb\_tree::~\_Rb\_tree() [with \_Key = int, \_Val = std::pair, \_KeyOfValue = std::\_Select1st &gt;, \_Compare = std::less, \_Alloc = std::allocator &gt;]’ /usr/include/c++/4.3/bits/stl\_map.h:92:   instantiated from here ../test.cpp:11: error: ‘testObj::~testObj()’ is private /usr/include/c++/4.3/bits/stl\_pair.h:73: error: within this context /usr/include/c++/4.3/ext/new\_allocator.h: In member function ‘void \_\_gnu\_cxx::new\_allocator::destroy(\_Tp*) [with \_Tp = std::pair]’: /usr/include/c++/4.3/ext/new\_allocator.h:118: note: synthesized method ‘std::pair::~pair()’ first required hereBecause templates are wonderful!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064954</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257066660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Lots of older languages were "fixed form", most notably probably Fortran. It made some level of sense at the time since the formatting was designed for punch cards.</p><p>Indentation-delimitted code is not hard to parse. Python, for example, is actually extremely easy to parse, and the rules for how indentation works are quite simple and consistent. There are some problems (as lots of systems do dumb things to your whitespace), but it's not going back to Fortran 77 and it's not hard to parse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Lots of older languages were " fixed form " , most notably probably Fortran .
It made some level of sense at the time since the formatting was designed for punch cards.Indentation-delimitted code is not hard to parse .
Python , for example , is actually extremely easy to parse , and the rules for how indentation works are quite simple and consistent .
There are some problems ( as lots of systems do dumb things to your whitespace ) , but it 's not going back to Fortran 77 and it 's not hard to parse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lots of older languages were "fixed form", most notably probably Fortran.
It made some level of sense at the time since the formatting was designed for punch cards.Indentation-delimitted code is not hard to parse.
Python, for example, is actually extremely easy to parse, and the rules for how indentation works are quite simple and consistent.
There are some problems (as lots of systems do dumb things to your whitespace), but it's not going back to Fortran 77 and it's not hard to parse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057740</id>
	<title>I prefer brevity support</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1257070260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Vowels aren't nearly as expensive as they used to be back in the day.</p><p>It'd be a nice touch if they'd add vowel support in package names.</p></div><p>I can expand the name "fmt" in my head as I read it.  I can't really expand my typing from "fmt" to "format" as I type it without typing it, or without having some auto-replace thing which then goes ahead and does the wrong thing sometimes (which I then have to undo), or I have to explicitly say "yes, expand this" which takes extra key presses (which we're trying to avoid), or...</p><p>If you ask me, it'd be a nice touch if they kept the support for brevity in their package names.</p><p>Otherwise, we end up with ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException rather than IndexError.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Vowels are n't nearly as expensive as they used to be back in the day.It 'd be a nice touch if they 'd add vowel support in package names.I can expand the name " fmt " in my head as I read it .
I ca n't really expand my typing from " fmt " to " format " as I type it without typing it , or without having some auto-replace thing which then goes ahead and does the wrong thing sometimes ( which I then have to undo ) , or I have to explicitly say " yes , expand this " which takes extra key presses ( which we 're trying to avoid ) , or...If you ask me , it 'd be a nice touch if they kept the support for brevity in their package names.Otherwise , we end up with ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException rather than IndexError .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vowels aren't nearly as expensive as they used to be back in the day.It'd be a nice touch if they'd add vowel support in package names.I can expand the name "fmt" in my head as I read it.
I can't really expand my typing from "fmt" to "format" as I type it without typing it, or without having some auto-replace thing which then goes ahead and does the wrong thing sometimes (which I then have to undo), or I have to explicitly say "yes, expand this" which takes extra key presses (which we're trying to avoid), or...If you ask me, it'd be a nice touch if they kept the support for brevity in their package names.Otherwise, we end up with ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException rather than IndexError.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30066072</id>
	<title>Eliminating getter/setter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257072240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was wondering if any programming language has done something like this:</p><p>class A {<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; property B {<nobr> <wbr></nobr>// specify B's type<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; type integer;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>// specify legal values for B<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; constraint B &gt; 0;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; constraint B  100;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>// specify that B can be read and written  from outside the class<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; public read, write;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>// specify default value, used on initialization<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; default 1;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; }<br>}</p><p>Would seem to reduce the amount of boilerplate code you would have to write in terms of getter/setter functions, and make everything clearer.  You could just say A.B = 5 or C = A.B  without having to call A.setB(5) A.getB().  Object initialization would also be much more clear, you would simply create the object and set any values you want.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was wondering if any programming language has done something like this : class A {       property B { // specify B 's type               type integer ; // specify legal values for B               constraint B &gt; 0 ;               constraint B 100 ; // specify that B can be read and written from outside the class                 public read , write ; // specify default value , used on initialization                 default 1 ;         } } Would seem to reduce the amount of boilerplate code you would have to write in terms of getter/setter functions , and make everything clearer .
You could just say A.B = 5 or C = A.B without having to call A.setB ( 5 ) A.getB ( ) .
Object initialization would also be much more clear , you would simply create the object and set any values you want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was wondering if any programming language has done something like this:class A {
      property B { // specify B's type
              type integer; // specify legal values for B
              constraint B &gt; 0;
              constraint B  100; // specify that B can be read and written  from outside the class
                public read, write; // specify default value, used on initialization
                default 1;
        }}Would seem to reduce the amount of boilerplate code you would have to write in terms of getter/setter functions, and make everything clearer.
You could just say A.B = 5 or C = A.B  without having to call A.setB(5) A.getB().
Object initialization would also be much more clear, you would simply create the object and set any values you want.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061664</id>
	<title>Re:You must have missed the Go specification...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257096900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not even possible to implement goroutines in plain C++ or C. Go uses segmented stacks which start out small and grow dynamically, which is how you can have so many goroutines/threads. You'll need a modified C or C++ compiler to get this behavior.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not even possible to implement goroutines in plain C + + or C. Go uses segmented stacks which start out small and grow dynamically , which is how you can have so many goroutines/threads .
You 'll need a modified C or C + + compiler to get this behavior .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not even possible to implement goroutines in plain C++ or C. Go uses segmented stacks which start out small and grow dynamically, which is how you can have so many goroutines/threads.
You'll need a modified C or C++ compiler to get this behavior.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058884</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056700</id>
	<title>"Systems" language?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257879000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're billing Go as a "systems language."  If by "system" they mean "application server in a Google data center" then I suppose that's correct.  Previously the term "systems language" referred to languages suitable for operation system implementation, including device drivers, virtual memory management and other persnickety low-level software.  Lack of pointer arithmetic and explicit memory management probably precludes any attempt to use Go as a "systems" language by that definition (although there are <a href="http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/singularity/" title="microsoft.com">exceptions</a> [microsoft.com] to that thinking.)</p><p>There is too much competition from other fresh and well regarded "new" languages for yet another new entrant to gain much headway without something really novel to attract attention.  Not that trying is bad; by all means keep at it.  Can't afford the mental bandwidth to jump on more new bandwagons, however.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're billing Go as a " systems language .
" If by " system " they mean " application server in a Google data center " then I suppose that 's correct .
Previously the term " systems language " referred to languages suitable for operation system implementation , including device drivers , virtual memory management and other persnickety low-level software .
Lack of pointer arithmetic and explicit memory management probably precludes any attempt to use Go as a " systems " language by that definition ( although there are exceptions [ microsoft.com ] to that thinking .
) There is too much competition from other fresh and well regarded " new " languages for yet another new entrant to gain much headway without something really novel to attract attention .
Not that trying is bad ; by all means keep at it .
Ca n't afford the mental bandwidth to jump on more new bandwagons , however .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're billing Go as a "systems language.
"  If by "system" they mean "application server in a Google data center" then I suppose that's correct.
Previously the term "systems language" referred to languages suitable for operation system implementation, including device drivers, virtual memory management and other persnickety low-level software.
Lack of pointer arithmetic and explicit memory management probably precludes any attempt to use Go as a "systems" language by that definition (although there are exceptions [microsoft.com] to that thinking.
)There is too much competition from other fresh and well regarded "new" languages for yet another new entrant to gain much headway without something really novel to attract attention.
Not that trying is bad; by all means keep at it.
Can't afford the mental bandwidth to jump on more new bandwagons, however.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061238</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257095340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having have to use whitespace for code blocks in python is one of the most hated feature i have to tolerate when writing python. It takes away my freedom NOT to use whitespace, when i want to have compact, generic, easy to copy-paste code chunks which are not worth creating a library.</p><p>Other features which I hate, are non-assignable expressions and vaguely defined locality of variables.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having have to use whitespace for code blocks in python is one of the most hated feature i have to tolerate when writing python .
It takes away my freedom NOT to use whitespace , when i want to have compact , generic , easy to copy-paste code chunks which are not worth creating a library.Other features which I hate , are non-assignable expressions and vaguely defined locality of variables .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having have to use whitespace for code blocks in python is one of the most hated feature i have to tolerate when writing python.
It takes away my freedom NOT to use whitespace, when i want to have compact, generic, easy to copy-paste code chunks which are not worth creating a library.Other features which I hate, are non-assignable expressions and vaguely defined locality of variables.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059638</id>
	<title>Re:"Go" name already taken for programming languag</title>
	<author>LaminatorX</author>
	<datestamp>1257088440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Two "Go"s considered harmful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Two " Go " s considered harmful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two "Go"s considered harmful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064674</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>codecore</author>
	<datestamp>1257108660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fortran IV</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fortran IV</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fortran IV</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30070268</id>
	<title>Re:Build-in function library</title>
	<author>Waccoon</author>
	<datestamp>1258017600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I write distributable code for shared servers.  Fun stuff.  It's getting less fun now that much of the new PHP code is being put into PEAR modules, which must be installed on the server by a sysadmin.  Yes, I know "serious" programmers have their own server, but I like making fun little things that ordinary people, primarily artists, can put on a cheap, shared server.</p><p>I pray the PHP team doesn't make GDLib an optional module.  GDLib may suck, but it keeps me from having to write an abstraction layer to do a direct system call for ImageMagik, which may not even be available, even on Linux hosts.  Sometimes, it's nice to have a monolithic platform you can strip down, rather than a minimal platform you can build up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I write distributable code for shared servers .
Fun stuff .
It 's getting less fun now that much of the new PHP code is being put into PEAR modules , which must be installed on the server by a sysadmin .
Yes , I know " serious " programmers have their own server , but I like making fun little things that ordinary people , primarily artists , can put on a cheap , shared server.I pray the PHP team does n't make GDLib an optional module .
GDLib may suck , but it keeps me from having to write an abstraction layer to do a direct system call for ImageMagik , which may not even be available , even on Linux hosts .
Sometimes , it 's nice to have a monolithic platform you can strip down , rather than a minimal platform you can build up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I write distributable code for shared servers.
Fun stuff.
It's getting less fun now that much of the new PHP code is being put into PEAR modules, which must be installed on the server by a sysadmin.
Yes, I know "serious" programmers have their own server, but I like making fun little things that ordinary people, primarily artists, can put on a cheap, shared server.I pray the PHP team doesn't make GDLib an optional module.
GDLib may suck, but it keeps me from having to write an abstraction layer to do a direct system call for ImageMagik, which may not even be available, even on Linux hosts.
Sometimes, it's nice to have a monolithic platform you can strip down, rather than a minimal platform you can build up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057472</id>
	<title>Re:Fixes problems misguided people think C++ has.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257067080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;There's a good reason why C++ is still in wide and very popular use: precisely because it does have explicit memory management and pointer arithmetic.<br>bzztt WRONG!!!  C++ is in popular use despite having explicit memory management and pointer arithmetic.  Unless you're talking about people who write operating systems and device drivers.  Which is not insignificant...but hardly a majority of the software developed today.</p><p>I don't get the hate about garbage collection.  How much time do you spend writing and maintaining constructors, copy constructors, assignment operators, destructors, etc?  God forbid if you want to make them exception safe.  All that just goes away with garbage collection.  Sure, if you're writing Doom 8 you probably need to squeeze every cycle out of your PC...but if you're writing e.g. desktop productivity software, does it really matter that you spend 3\% of your application time in the GC?  Oh the horrors!!(but we shipped 5 months earlier because we didn't have to deal with bullshit memory errors)</p><p>The first problem C++ needs fixing is the insane preprocessor copy/paste mechanism for header files.  That alone would probably make every c++ dev 2x more productive, given that their build process would stop being an O(N^2) operation.  I mean, when there are books(Large Scale C++ Software Design) and design patterns(PIMPL) about how to physically structure your code to make it compile faster, you know you're in trouble.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; There 's a good reason why C + + is still in wide and very popular use : precisely because it does have explicit memory management and pointer arithmetic.bzztt WRONG ! ! !
C + + is in popular use despite having explicit memory management and pointer arithmetic .
Unless you 're talking about people who write operating systems and device drivers .
Which is not insignificant...but hardly a majority of the software developed today.I do n't get the hate about garbage collection .
How much time do you spend writing and maintaining constructors , copy constructors , assignment operators , destructors , etc ?
God forbid if you want to make them exception safe .
All that just goes away with garbage collection .
Sure , if you 're writing Doom 8 you probably need to squeeze every cycle out of your PC...but if you 're writing e.g .
desktop productivity software , does it really matter that you spend 3 \ % of your application time in the GC ?
Oh the horrors ! !
( but we shipped 5 months earlier because we did n't have to deal with bullshit memory errors ) The first problem C + + needs fixing is the insane preprocessor copy/paste mechanism for header files .
That alone would probably make every c + + dev 2x more productive , given that their build process would stop being an O ( N ^ 2 ) operation .
I mean , when there are books ( Large Scale C + + Software Design ) and design patterns ( PIMPL ) about how to physically structure your code to make it compile faster , you know you 're in trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;There's a good reason why C++ is still in wide and very popular use: precisely because it does have explicit memory management and pointer arithmetic.bzztt WRONG!!!
C++ is in popular use despite having explicit memory management and pointer arithmetic.
Unless you're talking about people who write operating systems and device drivers.
Which is not insignificant...but hardly a majority of the software developed today.I don't get the hate about garbage collection.
How much time do you spend writing and maintaining constructors, copy constructors, assignment operators, destructors, etc?
God forbid if you want to make them exception safe.
All that just goes away with garbage collection.
Sure, if you're writing Doom 8 you probably need to squeeze every cycle out of your PC...but if you're writing e.g.
desktop productivity software, does it really matter that you spend 3\% of your application time in the GC?
Oh the horrors!!
(but we shipped 5 months earlier because we didn't have to deal with bullshit memory errors)The first problem C++ needs fixing is the insane preprocessor copy/paste mechanism for header files.
That alone would probably make every c++ dev 2x more productive, given that their build process would stop being an O(N^2) operation.
I mean, when there are books(Large Scale C++ Software Design) and design patterns(PIMPL) about how to physically structure your code to make it compile faster, you know you're in trouble.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057840</id>
	<title>Ummm, C++ has a string class.</title>
	<author>Joce640k</author>
	<datestamp>1257071700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We've also figured out how to make memory management a non-issue, we don't want no steenkin' garbage collection.</p><p>I looked at GO and I'm not sure what it brings to the table that can't be done better with C++.</p><p>Maybe</p><p>a) Slightly cleaner syntax - no big deal once you're used to C++.<br>b) No pointer arithmetic - less chance of stray pointers, sure, but you should be using STL anyway. If you're still banging pointers around in C++ you're Doing It Wrong (except for very low-level code).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 've also figured out how to make memory management a non-issue , we do n't want no steenkin ' garbage collection.I looked at GO and I 'm not sure what it brings to the table that ca n't be done better with C + + .Maybea ) Slightly cleaner syntax - no big deal once you 're used to C + + .b ) No pointer arithmetic - less chance of stray pointers , sure , but you should be using STL anyway .
If you 're still banging pointers around in C + + you 're Doing It Wrong ( except for very low-level code ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We've also figured out how to make memory management a non-issue, we don't want no steenkin' garbage collection.I looked at GO and I'm not sure what it brings to the table that can't be done better with C++.Maybea) Slightly cleaner syntax - no big deal once you're used to C++.b) No pointer arithmetic - less chance of stray pointers, sure, but you should be using STL anyway.
If you're still banging pointers around in C++ you're Doing It Wrong (except for very low-level code).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056594</id>
	<title>Re:Build-in function library</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1257878220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If they could at least include a subset of OpenGL... or just an SDL wrapper, maybe with some high-level features for simple 2d-3d manipulation... this looks like it would be a great learning language.  I see they have a DRAW library with a very limited number of features.<br> <br>

They also have a "spacewar" directory, currently empty...<br> <br>

Whenever Google announces something, you have to make the decision... jump on it immediately and get ahead of the curve, but risk wasting all that time if it doesn't take off?  Or wait?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they could at least include a subset of OpenGL... or just an SDL wrapper , maybe with some high-level features for simple 2d-3d manipulation... this looks like it would be a great learning language .
I see they have a DRAW library with a very limited number of features .
They also have a " spacewar " directory , currently empty.. . Whenever Google announces something , you have to make the decision... jump on it immediately and get ahead of the curve , but risk wasting all that time if it does n't take off ?
Or wait ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they could at least include a subset of OpenGL... or just an SDL wrapper, maybe with some high-level features for simple 2d-3d manipulation... this looks like it would be a great learning language.
I see they have a DRAW library with a very limited number of features.
They also have a "spacewar" directory, currently empty... 

Whenever Google announces something, you have to make the decision... jump on it immediately and get ahead of the curve, but risk wasting all that time if it doesn't take off?
Or wait?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057538</id>
	<title>Re:Wonder?</title>
	<author>CrashNBrn</author>
	<datestamp>1257067860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From some of the design specs. It makes sense for it to have Goto [label], as it's similar functionality to Break and Continue which likewise support labels:<br>
ContinueStmt = "continue" [ Label ]<br>
BreakStmt = "break" [ Label ].</htmltext>
<tokenext>From some of the design specs .
It makes sense for it to have Goto [ label ] , as it 's similar functionality to Break and Continue which likewise support labels : ContinueStmt = " continue " [ Label ] BreakStmt = " break " [ Label ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From some of the design specs.
It makes sense for it to have Goto [label], as it's similar functionality to Break and Continue which likewise support labels:
ContinueStmt = "continue" [ Label ]
BreakStmt = "break" [ Label ].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30084118</id>
	<title>Slices from xmlrpc</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1258055040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <tt>typedef struct \_xmlrpc\_mem\_block {<br>  size\_t \_size;<br>  size\_t \_allocated;<br>  void* \_block;<br>} xmlrpc\_mem\_block;</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>I think <a href="http://golang.org/doc/go\_for\_cpp\_programmers.html#Slices" title="golang.org" rel="nofollow">http://golang.org/doc/go\_for\_cpp\_programmers.html#Slices</a> [golang.org] are picked from <a href="http://xmlrpc-c.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net" rel="nofollow">http://xmlrpc-c.sourceforge.net/</a> [sourceforge.net]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>typedef struct \ _xmlrpc \ _mem \ _block { size \ _t \ _size ; size \ _t \ _allocated ; void * \ _block ; } xmlrpc \ _mem \ _block ; I think http : //golang.org/doc/go \ _for \ _cpp \ _programmers.html # Slices [ golang.org ] are picked from http : //xmlrpc-c.sourceforge.net/ [ sourceforge.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> typedef struct \_xmlrpc\_mem\_block {  size\_t \_size;  size\_t \_allocated;  void* \_block;} xmlrpc\_mem\_block; I think http://golang.org/doc/go\_for\_cpp\_programmers.html#Slices [golang.org] are picked from http://xmlrpc-c.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057458</id>
	<title>Re:Google search "Go"</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1257066780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, no - "Go Open Source Programming e-Language"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... GOSPeL.  That would not only make it easier to find in searches, but the occasional unrelated search result would most assuredly a topic loved by programmers everywhere!</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , no - " Go Open Source Programming e-Language " ... GOSPeL. That would not only make it easier to find in searches , but the occasional unrelated search result would most assuredly a topic loved by programmers everywhere !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, no - "Go Open Source Programming e-Language" ... GOSPeL.  That would not only make it easier to find in searches, but the occasional unrelated search result would most assuredly a topic loved by programmers everywhere!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058234</id>
	<title>Re:Fixes problems misguided people think C++ has.</title>
	<author>dkf</author>
	<datestamp>1257076260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Go has garbage collection and lacks pointer arithmetic. So... it won't replace C++, then?</p></div><p>For some uses, it will. Those will typically be the uses where writing it in C++ is not that good a solution anyway, and where trading off a lack of low-level access for a lower bug rate is worthwhile. As is usual with programming languages, the exact balance between restrictions and power comes out differently in different situations; removal of sharp tools from the toolbox can even sometimes be an enabler.</p><p>You're not much of a programmer if you only have one programming tool to work with. That's like being a joiner who only uses a hammer...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go has garbage collection and lacks pointer arithmetic .
So... it wo n't replace C + + , then ? For some uses , it will .
Those will typically be the uses where writing it in C + + is not that good a solution anyway , and where trading off a lack of low-level access for a lower bug rate is worthwhile .
As is usual with programming languages , the exact balance between restrictions and power comes out differently in different situations ; removal of sharp tools from the toolbox can even sometimes be an enabler.You 're not much of a programmer if you only have one programming tool to work with .
That 's like being a joiner who only uses a hammer.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go has garbage collection and lacks pointer arithmetic.
So... it won't replace C++, then?For some uses, it will.
Those will typically be the uses where writing it in C++ is not that good a solution anyway, and where trading off a lack of low-level access for a lower bug rate is worthwhile.
As is usual with programming languages, the exact balance between restrictions and power comes out differently in different situations; removal of sharp tools from the toolbox can even sometimes be an enabler.You're not much of a programmer if you only have one programming tool to work with.
That's like being a joiner who only uses a hammer...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30066064</id>
	<title>10 seconds is just not fast; Sorry guys</title>
	<author>cb123</author>
	<datestamp>1257072180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just used tcc to compile itself in *100 milliseconds*,
some 100X faster than the Go advertisement.
Does Go actually do 100X more work than a C compiler?
Doutbful.

It may be 100X faster than the insanity that has become
gcc compiling itself, but it actually sounds pretty slow
for what it does.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just used tcc to compile itself in * 100 milliseconds * , some 100X faster than the Go advertisement .
Does Go actually do 100X more work than a C compiler ?
Doutbful . It may be 100X faster than the insanity that has become gcc compiling itself , but it actually sounds pretty slow for what it does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just used tcc to compile itself in *100 milliseconds*,
some 100X faster than the Go advertisement.
Does Go actually do 100X more work than a C compiler?
Doutbful.

It may be 100X faster than the insanity that has become
gcc compiling itself, but it actually sounds pretty slow
for what it does.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060868</id>
	<title>Re:"Systems" language?</title>
	<author>fulldecent</author>
	<datestamp>1257093780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>the main benefit is simple concurrency.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the main benefit is simple concurrency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the main benefit is simple concurrency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059962</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>parkrrrr</author>
	<datestamp>1257089820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That'd be Fortran. Code generally had to start in column 7. But that had nothing to do with loops or conditional structure. Fortran code isn't generally indented to show structure. After all, it was hard to write; it should be hard to read. (More reasonably, since code is limited to columns 7-72, there's not much space to be wasted on frills like indentation.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 'd be Fortran .
Code generally had to start in column 7 .
But that had nothing to do with loops or conditional structure .
Fortran code is n't generally indented to show structure .
After all , it was hard to write ; it should be hard to read .
( More reasonably , since code is limited to columns 7-72 , there 's not much space to be wasted on frills like indentation .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That'd be Fortran.
Code generally had to start in column 7.
But that had nothing to do with loops or conditional structure.
Fortran code isn't generally indented to show structure.
After all, it was hard to write; it should be hard to read.
(More reasonably, since code is limited to columns 7-72, there's not much space to be wasted on frills like indentation.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057048</id>
	<title>Lightweight languages do not remain lightweight.</title>
	<author>reporter</author>
	<datestamp>1257882600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ars Technica writes, "<b>A video illustrates just how fast compilation is: the entire language, 120K lines, compiles in under 10 sec. on a laptop</b>."
<p>
If this language becomes as popular as Perl, then 120,000 lines will soon become 1,200,000 lines.  That is exactly what happened to the Perl interpreter and compiler.
</p><p>
Also, just like Java, the new Go language (due to the immense respect for Google's scientific prowess) will likely receive accolades:  "it is the best, final language that we will ever need".  The same was said for Java.  It was sold as the ultimate final language built on 50 years of accumulated knowledge of language design and computer architecture. Upon the introduction of Java, company after company blindly adopted it.
</p><p>
Was Java the final language satisfying humankind's computing needs?  No.  Was adopting it worth the cost?  Maybe.
</p><p>
Now, we have Go.  Is it a massive improvement over C and Java, thus justifying spending milions of dollars to train programmers?  Only the future will tell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ars Technica writes , " A video illustrates just how fast compilation is : the entire language , 120K lines , compiles in under 10 sec .
on a laptop .
" If this language becomes as popular as Perl , then 120,000 lines will soon become 1,200,000 lines .
That is exactly what happened to the Perl interpreter and compiler .
Also , just like Java , the new Go language ( due to the immense respect for Google 's scientific prowess ) will likely receive accolades : " it is the best , final language that we will ever need " .
The same was said for Java .
It was sold as the ultimate final language built on 50 years of accumulated knowledge of language design and computer architecture .
Upon the introduction of Java , company after company blindly adopted it .
Was Java the final language satisfying humankind 's computing needs ?
No. Was adopting it worth the cost ?
Maybe . Now , we have Go .
Is it a massive improvement over C and Java , thus justifying spending milions of dollars to train programmers ?
Only the future will tell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ars Technica writes, "A video illustrates just how fast compilation is: the entire language, 120K lines, compiles in under 10 sec.
on a laptop.
"

If this language becomes as popular as Perl, then 120,000 lines will soon become 1,200,000 lines.
That is exactly what happened to the Perl interpreter and compiler.
Also, just like Java, the new Go language (due to the immense respect for Google's scientific prowess) will likely receive accolades:  "it is the best, final language that we will ever need".
The same was said for Java.
It was sold as the ultimate final language built on 50 years of accumulated knowledge of language design and computer architecture.
Upon the introduction of Java, company after company blindly adopted it.
Was Java the final language satisfying humankind's computing needs?
No.  Was adopting it worth the cost?
Maybe.

Now, we have Go.
Is it a massive improvement over C and Java, thus justifying spending milions of dollars to train programmers?
Only the future will tell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057322</id>
	<title>Sponsored by The Power Rangers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257108420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But wait! "Go Go Google Language" is just the right number of syllables to be the Power Rangers Theme song! Oh no! Curse you the 90s and your many memorable children's shows!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But wait !
" Go Go Google Language " is just the right number of syllables to be the Power Rangers Theme song !
Oh no !
Curse you the 90s and your many memorable children 's shows !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But wait!
"Go Go Google Language" is just the right number of syllables to be the Power Rangers Theme song!
Oh no!
Curse you the 90s and your many memorable children's shows!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057212</id>
	<title>Re:Google search "Go"</title>
	<author>six6</author>
	<datestamp>1257107100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're right, that would have helped, because looking in Google's issue tracker for "go" we find there is already <a href="http://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=9&amp;colspec=ID\%20Type\%20Status\%20Owner\%20Summary" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">a programming language called Go!</a> [google.com] The author of the Go! language has published <a href="http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/lets-go/641689" title="lulu.com" rel="nofollow">a book</a> [lulu.com] and isn't OK with Google naming this new language "go"...</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're right , that would have helped , because looking in Google 's issue tracker for " go " we find there is already a programming language called Go !
[ google.com ] The author of the Go !
language has published a book [ lulu.com ] and is n't OK with Google naming this new language " go " .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're right, that would have helped, because looking in Google's issue tracker for "go" we find there is already a programming language called Go!
[google.com] The author of the Go!
language has published a book [lulu.com] and isn't OK with Google naming this new language "go"...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058432</id>
	<title>Re:Build-in function library</title>
	<author>danieltdp</author>
	<datestamp>1257078780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From <a href="http://golang.org/doc/go\_faq.html" title="golang.org">Go's FAQ</a> [golang.org] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>There is a &ldquo;foreign function interface&rdquo; to allow safe calling of C-written libraries from Go code. We expect to use SWIG to extend this capability to C++ libraries. There is no safe way to call Go code from C or C++ yet.</p> </div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From Go 's FAQ [ golang.org ] There is a    foreign function interface    to allow safe calling of C-written libraries from Go code .
We expect to use SWIG to extend this capability to C + + libraries .
There is no safe way to call Go code from C or C + + yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From Go's FAQ [golang.org] There is a “foreign function interface” to allow safe calling of C-written libraries from Go code.
We expect to use SWIG to extend this capability to C++ libraries.
There is no safe way to call Go code from C or C++ yet. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058292</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30071132</id>
	<title>Re:Holy Shitbags Binaries Are Static And *Huge*</title>
	<author>acheron12</author>
	<datestamp>1258030920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have you tried <a href="http://linux.about.com/library/cmd/blcmdl1\_strip.htm" title="about.com" rel="nofollow">stripping</a> [about.com] the binary?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Have you tried stripping [ about.com ] the binary ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have you tried stripping [about.com] the binary?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064820</id>
	<title>Re:"Go" name already taken for programming languag</title>
	<author>Archibald Buttle</author>
	<datestamp>1257066000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a petition now to change the name to "Issue 9": <a href="http://www.petitiononline.com/gglgoi9/petition.html" title="petitiononline.com">http://www.petitiononline.com/gglgoi9/petition.html</a> [petitiononline.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a petition now to change the name to " Issue 9 " : http : //www.petitiononline.com/gglgoi9/petition.html [ petitiononline.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a petition now to change the name to "Issue 9": http://www.petitiononline.com/gglgoi9/petition.html [petitiononline.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057356</id>
	<title>Re:Google search "Go"</title>
	<author>slysithesuperspy</author>
	<datestamp>1257108840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow, its a fast language to code in alright. I can find 51,500,000 programs already!!1</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , its a fast language to code in alright .
I can find 51,500,000 programs already !
! 1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, its a fast language to code in alright.
I can find 51,500,000 programs already!
!1</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30067910</id>
	<title>Re:Not Invented Here</title>
	<author>foxylad</author>
	<datestamp>1257082380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm calling you on the OpenOffice/GoogleApps comparison too - since when is a monolithic office suite anything like a lightweight online collaboration app?</p><p>You might as well say they shouldn't have bothered with Gmail because there are perfectly good open source email clients available.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm calling you on the OpenOffice/GoogleApps comparison too - since when is a monolithic office suite anything like a lightweight online collaboration app ? You might as well say they should n't have bothered with Gmail because there are perfectly good open source email clients available .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm calling you on the OpenOffice/GoogleApps comparison too - since when is a monolithic office suite anything like a lightweight online collaboration app?You might as well say they shouldn't have bothered with Gmail because there are perfectly good open source email clients available.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30066418</id>
	<title>I'm done with file based languages</title>
	<author>jamie(really)</author>
	<datestamp>1257073560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm done with any language that requires that one file references another by a *path*. So when I have to do something low level enough for C, I'll probably stick with that, since at least my editors can deal with that shit for me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm done with any language that requires that one file references another by a * path * .
So when I have to do something low level enough for C , I 'll probably stick with that , since at least my editors can deal with that shit for me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm done with any language that requires that one file references another by a *path*.
So when I have to do something low level enough for C, I'll probably stick with that, since at least my editors can deal with that shit for me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30065564</id>
	<title>Re:fmt</title>
	<author>equivocal</author>
	<datestamp>1257069660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>cnt</tt> was always my favorite of the unnecessarily de-voweled identifiers.  How many others could get you fired if you said it aloud the way it's written?</htmltext>
<tokenext>cnt was always my favorite of the unnecessarily de-voweled identifiers .
How many others could get you fired if you said it aloud the way it 's written ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cnt was always my favorite of the unnecessarily de-voweled identifiers.
How many others could get you fired if you said it aloud the way it's written?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30067704</id>
	<title>Re:Fixes problems misguided people think C++ has.</title>
	<author>godrik</author>
	<datestamp>1257080820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The point of GP is that Go is claimed to be a system programming language.  Then if you can not write an OS with your system programming language then it is not a system programming language.

But I suspect the Go team was not thinking of that when they characterized it as "system".</htmltext>
<tokenext>The point of GP is that Go is claimed to be a system programming language .
Then if you can not write an OS with your system programming language then it is not a system programming language .
But I suspect the Go team was not thinking of that when they characterized it as " system " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The point of GP is that Go is claimed to be a system programming language.
Then if you can not write an OS with your system programming language then it is not a system programming language.
But I suspect the Go team was not thinking of that when they characterized it as "system".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061630</id>
	<title>Re:Sponsored by Inspector Gadget</title>
	<author>evil\_aar0n</author>
	<datestamp>1257096780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Should it be "Go Google Go Language"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Should it be " Go Google Go Language " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Should it be "Go Google Go Language"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058998</id>
	<title>Re:Attempting to install it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257084480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you using Fedora? I was just in IRC and saw people talking about how it has the wrong permissions on those files. One person said he changed them, and the Go compiler would work, but then any future logins would subsequently fail.</p><p>I use Ubuntu, and it worked just fine there. I'd suggest that you get rid of Fedora.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you using Fedora ?
I was just in IRC and saw people talking about how it has the wrong permissions on those files .
One person said he changed them , and the Go compiler would work , but then any future logins would subsequently fail.I use Ubuntu , and it worked just fine there .
I 'd suggest that you get rid of Fedora .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you using Fedora?
I was just in IRC and saw people talking about how it has the wrong permissions on those files.
One person said he changed them, and the Go compiler would work, but then any future logins would subsequently fail.I use Ubuntu, and it worked just fine there.
I'd suggest that you get rid of Fedora.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30062920</id>
	<title>Re:Google search "Go"</title>
	<author>frank\_adrian314159</author>
	<datestamp>1257102360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just be glad they didn't name it YAPL (Yet Another Programming Language) - although I'm sure that was already used sometime in the eighties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just be glad they did n't name it YAPL ( Yet Another Programming Language ) - although I 'm sure that was already used sometime in the eighties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just be glad they didn't name it YAPL (Yet Another Programming Language) - although I'm sure that was already used sometime in the eighties.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056554</id>
	<title>fmt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257877920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vowels aren't nearly as expensive as they used to be back in the day.</p><p>It'd be a nice touch if they'd add vowel support in package names.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vowels are n't nearly as expensive as they used to be back in the day.It 'd be a nice touch if they 'd add vowel support in package names .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vowels aren't nearly as expensive as they used to be back in the day.It'd be a nice touch if they'd add vowel support in package names.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056696</id>
	<title>Intolerable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257879000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't like how this language uses "func" instead of "function", therefore this language is terrible and everyone who uses it or thinks about it in any way except for about it sucking is also terrible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't like how this language uses " func " instead of " function " , therefore this language is terrible and everyone who uses it or thinks about it in any way except for about it sucking is also terrible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't like how this language uses "func" instead of "function", therefore this language is terrible and everyone who uses it or thinks about it in any way except for about it sucking is also terrible.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057152</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1257106260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> "playerArray,"</p> </div><p>
I for one welcome our new Dyslexic Hungarian overlords.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" playerArray , " I for one welcome our new Dyslexic Hungarian overlords .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "playerArray," 
I for one welcome our new Dyslexic Hungarian overlords.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056646</id>
	<title>compiled in under 10 sec?</title>
	<author>martin-boundary</author>
	<datestamp>1257878640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't think so. I have an old Thinkpad 701C laptop which ain't compilin' this in under 10 seconds, if at all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think so .
I have an old Thinkpad 701C laptop which ai n't compilin ' this in under 10 seconds , if at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think so.
I have an old Thinkpad 701C laptop which ain't compilin' this in under 10 seconds, if at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30066628</id>
	<title>Re:Fixes problems misguided people think C++ has.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257074340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>More silliness from someone who knows all programming languages but couldn't program himself out of a paper bag in any one of them, no doubt. The "multiple tools in the toolbox" are those things you build with the GP language (like a garbage collector if you need/want one, for example). If you need more than one language, then there is inadequacy in your GP language or your programming skill.</p><p>(Aside: their hasn't yet been a true GP language. Google directly targeted the most purported "GP language" as their supposed competition. I'm a C++ developer and am not going to use Go. I know that most all other C++ developers won't either, because it misses the mark entirely).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More silliness from someone who knows all programming languages but could n't program himself out of a paper bag in any one of them , no doubt .
The " multiple tools in the toolbox " are those things you build with the GP language ( like a garbage collector if you need/want one , for example ) .
If you need more than one language , then there is inadequacy in your GP language or your programming skill .
( Aside : their has n't yet been a true GP language .
Google directly targeted the most purported " GP language " as their supposed competition .
I 'm a C + + developer and am not going to use Go .
I know that most all other C + + developers wo n't either , because it misses the mark entirely ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More silliness from someone who knows all programming languages but couldn't program himself out of a paper bag in any one of them, no doubt.
The "multiple tools in the toolbox" are those things you build with the GP language (like a garbage collector if you need/want one, for example).
If you need more than one language, then there is inadequacy in your GP language or your programming skill.
(Aside: their hasn't yet been a true GP language.
Google directly targeted the most purported "GP language" as their supposed competition.
I'm a C++ developer and am not going to use Go.
I know that most all other C++ developers won't either, because it misses the mark entirely).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059266</id>
	<title>Re:Not Invented Here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257086400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google is developing a real, 'Not Invented Here' complex.  Rather than get behind Firefox, they produce their own browser. Rather than integrate tightly with OpenOffice, they produce Google Apps. Now they've written their own programming language. Go figure. And of course there's always those rumours of the Google OS...</p></div><p>Except that, in each case, they generally bring something new and interesting to the table that's worth investigating.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is developing a real , 'Not Invented Here ' complex .
Rather than get behind Firefox , they produce their own browser .
Rather than integrate tightly with OpenOffice , they produce Google Apps .
Now they 've written their own programming language .
Go figure .
And of course there 's always those rumours of the Google OS...Except that , in each case , they generally bring something new and interesting to the table that 's worth investigating .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is developing a real, 'Not Invented Here' complex.
Rather than get behind Firefox, they produce their own browser.
Rather than integrate tightly with OpenOffice, they produce Google Apps.
Now they've written their own programming language.
Go figure.
And of course there's always those rumours of the Google OS...Except that, in each case, they generally bring something new and interesting to the table that's worth investigating.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058292</id>
	<title>Re:Build-in function library</title>
	<author>dkf</author>
	<datestamp>1257076920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Or, more likely, they just did the fun part of designing the language, and are leaving the hard part of creating libraries to somebody else.</p></div><p>The easiest way is if there's already support for loading libraries (dynamically would be nice!) and calling functions defined in C. If there is, then there's huge numbers of libraries to leverage (not all of which are in C, of course; that's just the most common basic ABI by far). Wrapping them up into libs that feel native (or reimplementing if someone's feeling energetic) can be done piecemeal.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or , more likely , they just did the fun part of designing the language , and are leaving the hard part of creating libraries to somebody else.The easiest way is if there 's already support for loading libraries ( dynamically would be nice !
) and calling functions defined in C. If there is , then there 's huge numbers of libraries to leverage ( not all of which are in C , of course ; that 's just the most common basic ABI by far ) .
Wrapping them up into libs that feel native ( or reimplementing if someone 's feeling energetic ) can be done piecemeal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or, more likely, they just did the fun part of designing the language, and are leaving the hard part of creating libraries to somebody else.The easiest way is if there's already support for loading libraries (dynamically would be nice!
) and calling functions defined in C. If there is, then there's huge numbers of libraries to leverage (not all of which are in C, of course; that's just the most common basic ABI by far).
Wrapping them up into libs that feel native (or reimplementing if someone's feeling energetic) can be done piecemeal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056570</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061616</id>
	<title>Doesn't Google fund Python?</title>
	<author>Luke has no name</author>
	<datestamp>1257096720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guido? How do you feel about this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guido ?
How do you feel about this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guido?
How do you feel about this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057080</id>
	<title>Re:Attempting to install it...</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1257883020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Not having much luck. It can't find<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/passwd,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/group or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/hosts. All of which do exist. I'm inserting fmt.Fprintf statements to attempt to figure out why it is having problems.</p></div><p>Is there no debugger support?  Printfs are PainAss.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not having much luck .
It ca n't find /etc/passwd , /etc/group or /etc/hosts .
All of which do exist .
I 'm inserting fmt.Fprintf statements to attempt to figure out why it is having problems.Is there no debugger support ?
Printfs are PainAss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not having much luck.
It can't find /etc/passwd, /etc/group or /etc/hosts.
All of which do exist.
I'm inserting fmt.Fprintf statements to attempt to figure out why it is having problems.Is there no debugger support?
Printfs are PainAss.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30068186</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1257084600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"One of the earlier languages had position dependent coding (code had to start on column 3 or something like that. The name eludes me at the moment"</p><p>FORTRAN and COBOL both did this.</p><p>In the days of punched cards with strict columns and no proportional bitmap fonts, it was a bit easier to manage, I think. But still evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" One of the earlier languages had position dependent coding ( code had to start on column 3 or something like that .
The name eludes me at the moment " FORTRAN and COBOL both did this.In the days of punched cards with strict columns and no proportional bitmap fonts , it was a bit easier to manage , I think .
But still evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"One of the earlier languages had position dependent coding (code had to start on column 3 or something like that.
The name eludes me at the moment"FORTRAN and COBOL both did this.In the days of punched cards with strict columns and no proportional bitmap fonts, it was a bit easier to manage, I think.
But still evil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061814</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257097440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>For that matter, why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that's already there?</i> </p></div><p>Ever looked at python?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For that matter , why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that 's already there ?
Ever looked at python ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> For that matter, why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that's already there?
Ever looked at python?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056662</id>
	<title>Wonder?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257878700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does Go have goto statement ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does Go have goto statement ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does Go have goto statement ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058064</id>
	<title>Re:Not actually safe</title>
	<author>miro f</author>
	<datestamp>1257074460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Integer operations such as additions are incredibly quick, however you're going to be slowing your code down dramatically if you check for integer overflows with every single integer operation (unless you implement the check in hardware)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Integer operations such as additions are incredibly quick , however you 're going to be slowing your code down dramatically if you check for integer overflows with every single integer operation ( unless you implement the check in hardware )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Integer operations such as additions are incredibly quick, however you're going to be slowing your code down dramatically if you check for integer overflows with every single integer operation (unless you implement the check in hardware)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30069636</id>
	<title>Re:Fixes problems misguided people think C++ has.</title>
	<author>npsimons</author>
	<datestamp>1257099780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The problems C++ need fixing are elsewhere.</p></div></blockquote><p>How about a standard name-mangling scheme, can we fix that please?  Now I know I'm probably about the bazillionth person to bitch about this, but how fucking hard can it be to say "everyone will decorate their names this way so we can link against libraries made by other compilers."?  I mean, this wouldn't bother me so much except that Stroustrup actually *encourages* different name mangling in the standard.  All props to the man, and I love C++ above C, but WTF was he thinking?  I know, I should just get the source/release the source, but sometimes I don't always have that option.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problems C + + need fixing are elsewhere.How about a standard name-mangling scheme , can we fix that please ?
Now I know I 'm probably about the bazillionth person to bitch about this , but how fucking hard can it be to say " everyone will decorate their names this way so we can link against libraries made by other compilers. " ?
I mean , this would n't bother me so much except that Stroustrup actually * encourages * different name mangling in the standard .
All props to the man , and I love C + + above C , but WTF was he thinking ?
I know , I should just get the source/release the source , but sometimes I do n't always have that option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problems C++ need fixing are elsewhere.How about a standard name-mangling scheme, can we fix that please?
Now I know I'm probably about the bazillionth person to bitch about this, but how fucking hard can it be to say "everyone will decorate their names this way so we can link against libraries made by other compilers."?
I mean, this wouldn't bother me so much except that Stroustrup actually *encourages* different name mangling in the standard.
All props to the man, and I love C++ above C, but WTF was he thinking?
I know, I should just get the source/release the source, but sometimes I don't always have that option.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057726</id>
	<title>Re:Wonder?</title>
	<author>Odinlake</author>
	<datestamp>1257070020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>no, just white and black stones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>no , just white and black stones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>no, just white and black stones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058228</id>
	<title>Re:Fixes problems misguided people think C++ has.</title>
	<author>rusty</author>
	<datestamp>1257076200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Stop trying to replace C++ with a language that does not fulfill every aspect C++ covers.</p><p>Err, no (how did this get +5?)  C++'s entire problem stems from the attempt to Be All Things.  A far better approach is to design something that does one part of things well, and interoperates with C like everything else so you can glue stuff together.</p><p>They've subtracted, not added.  This is the Right Thing to have done.</p><p>Rusty.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Stop trying to replace C + + with a language that does not fulfill every aspect C + + covers.Err , no ( how did this get + 5 ?
) C + + 's entire problem stems from the attempt to Be All Things .
A far better approach is to design something that does one part of things well , and interoperates with C like everything else so you can glue stuff together.They 've subtracted , not added .
This is the Right Thing to have done.Rusty .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Stop trying to replace C++ with a language that does not fulfill every aspect C++ covers.Err, no (how did this get +5?
)  C++'s entire problem stems from the attempt to Be All Things.
A far better approach is to design something that does one part of things well, and interoperates with C like everything else so you can glue stuff together.They've subtracted, not added.
This is the Right Thing to have done.Rusty.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058102</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257074760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's probably not the one you're thinking of, but <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam\_(programming\_language)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Occam</a> [wikipedia.org] uses indentation to mark out blocks.  Two spaces, to be precise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's probably not the one you 're thinking of , but Occam [ wikipedia.org ] uses indentation to mark out blocks .
Two spaces , to be precise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's probably not the one you're thinking of, but Occam [wikipedia.org] uses indentation to mark out blocks.
Two spaces, to be precise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060694</id>
	<title>Re:Fixes problems misguided people think C++ has.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257093060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>LOL!  TheTurtlesMove is, no doubt, an "internet programmer".</p><p>Clue: If more "internet programmers" understood how operating systems worked and why those "useless features" exist, then computers wouldn't be so fucking slow despite having blazing fast CPU's and gargantuan amounts of ram.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>LOL !
TheTurtlesMove is , no doubt , an " internet programmer " .Clue : If more " internet programmers " understood how operating systems worked and why those " useless features " exist , then computers would n't be so fucking slow despite having blazing fast CPU 's and gargantuan amounts of ram .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>LOL!
TheTurtlesMove is, no doubt, an "internet programmer".Clue: If more "internet programmers" understood how operating systems worked and why those "useless features" exist, then computers wouldn't be so fucking slow despite having blazing fast CPU's and gargantuan amounts of ram.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057562</id>
	<title>Re:Fixes problems misguided people think C++ has.</title>
	<author>Stuntmonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1257068160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>There's a good reason why C++ is still in wide and very popular use: precisely because it does have explicit memory management and pointer arithmetic. C++ is a static, explicit language. Go is not. It will not replace C++, and no language will until that is understood.</i> </p><p>Why do you say Go is not a statically typed language?  It says quite directly in the language spec that it is, and that type safety was an important design goal.</p><p>The lack of explicit memory management is clearly one of the big things here, and in the video at golang.org they explain their rationale.  Part is the volume of bugs that explicit memory management creates, especially in threaded code.  Another part is the belief that modern GC technology is efficient enough to not impose much of a performance penalty.  Yet another part is that modern compilers are good enough at optimizing array indexing that there isn't any longer much efficiency benefit from pointer arithmetic.</p><p>The lack of pointer arithmetic seems to be a requirement in a language that supports garbage collection, if there is to be any guarantee of safety.  Otherwise an object might be marked for deletion by the GC because no references to it exist, but then later you may come along and "recreate" a reference through pointer arithmetic from a reference to a nearby object.  This combination would be inherently unsafe.</p><p>The other interesting feature here is the "interfaces" idea, in particular how you don't have to explicitly declare that type X implements interface Y.  It does so automatically, if you have defined the methods required by Y.  I think this could reduce some of the subclassing shenanigans and huge type hierarchies you can get into with C++, and do it in a type-safe way.</p><p>IMHO it's too early to form a judgment here, but I appreciate the fact that the designers have a restrained design aesthetic.  C++ is frankly an ungodly mess at this point, on par with Perl.  The success of Python shows that these things matter.  Also the fact that Google is backing it means it could see enough development to become usable as a production language (clearly it's got some way to go).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a good reason why C + + is still in wide and very popular use : precisely because it does have explicit memory management and pointer arithmetic .
C + + is a static , explicit language .
Go is not .
It will not replace C + + , and no language will until that is understood .
Why do you say Go is not a statically typed language ?
It says quite directly in the language spec that it is , and that type safety was an important design goal.The lack of explicit memory management is clearly one of the big things here , and in the video at golang.org they explain their rationale .
Part is the volume of bugs that explicit memory management creates , especially in threaded code .
Another part is the belief that modern GC technology is efficient enough to not impose much of a performance penalty .
Yet another part is that modern compilers are good enough at optimizing array indexing that there is n't any longer much efficiency benefit from pointer arithmetic.The lack of pointer arithmetic seems to be a requirement in a language that supports garbage collection , if there is to be any guarantee of safety .
Otherwise an object might be marked for deletion by the GC because no references to it exist , but then later you may come along and " recreate " a reference through pointer arithmetic from a reference to a nearby object .
This combination would be inherently unsafe.The other interesting feature here is the " interfaces " idea , in particular how you do n't have to explicitly declare that type X implements interface Y. It does so automatically , if you have defined the methods required by Y. I think this could reduce some of the subclassing shenanigans and huge type hierarchies you can get into with C + + , and do it in a type-safe way.IMHO it 's too early to form a judgment here , but I appreciate the fact that the designers have a restrained design aesthetic .
C + + is frankly an ungodly mess at this point , on par with Perl .
The success of Python shows that these things matter .
Also the fact that Google is backing it means it could see enough development to become usable as a production language ( clearly it 's got some way to go ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> There's a good reason why C++ is still in wide and very popular use: precisely because it does have explicit memory management and pointer arithmetic.
C++ is a static, explicit language.
Go is not.
It will not replace C++, and no language will until that is understood.
Why do you say Go is not a statically typed language?
It says quite directly in the language spec that it is, and that type safety was an important design goal.The lack of explicit memory management is clearly one of the big things here, and in the video at golang.org they explain their rationale.
Part is the volume of bugs that explicit memory management creates, especially in threaded code.
Another part is the belief that modern GC technology is efficient enough to not impose much of a performance penalty.
Yet another part is that modern compilers are good enough at optimizing array indexing that there isn't any longer much efficiency benefit from pointer arithmetic.The lack of pointer arithmetic seems to be a requirement in a language that supports garbage collection, if there is to be any guarantee of safety.
Otherwise an object might be marked for deletion by the GC because no references to it exist, but then later you may come along and "recreate" a reference through pointer arithmetic from a reference to a nearby object.
This combination would be inherently unsafe.The other interesting feature here is the "interfaces" idea, in particular how you don't have to explicitly declare that type X implements interface Y.  It does so automatically, if you have defined the methods required by Y.  I think this could reduce some of the subclassing shenanigans and huge type hierarchies you can get into with C++, and do it in a type-safe way.IMHO it's too early to form a judgment here, but I appreciate the fact that the designers have a restrained design aesthetic.
C++ is frankly an ungodly mess at this point, on par with Perl.
The success of Python shows that these things matter.
Also the fact that Google is backing it means it could see enough development to become usable as a production language (clearly it's got some way to go).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30062332</id>
	<title>Re:Not actually safe</title>
	<author>home-electro.com</author>
	<datestamp>1257099540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Checking for CARRY flag is one instruction. Not exactly a dramatic slowing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Checking for CARRY flag is one instruction .
Not exactly a dramatic slowing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Checking for CARRY flag is one instruction.
Not exactly a dramatic slowing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058064</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059126</id>
	<title>Re:Intolerable</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257085440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, it clearly should use <tt>fun</tt> in order to brighten up the programmer's day and make them think that work is fun.</p><p>I'm sure we all loved our functional programming in ML courses because of this!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it clearly should use fun in order to brighten up the programmer 's day and make them think that work is fun.I 'm sure we all loved our functional programming in ML courses because of this !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it clearly should use fun in order to brighten up the programmer's day and make them think that work is fun.I'm sure we all loved our functional programming in ML courses because of this!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056696</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057826</id>
	<title>Re:Attempting to install it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257071460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's actually a vast ARG. There isn't any real 'Go' at the moment, you're developing it for them. It's using the 'wet cloud' as a development system.</p><p>Wait, that didn't sound right at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's actually a vast ARG .
There is n't any real 'Go ' at the moment , you 're developing it for them .
It 's using the 'wet cloud ' as a development system.Wait , that did n't sound right at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's actually a vast ARG.
There isn't any real 'Go' at the moment, you're developing it for them.
It's using the 'wet cloud' as a development system.Wait, that didn't sound right at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057850</id>
	<title>great</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257071880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>is the go programming language logo a hamster or a bear?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>is the go programming language logo a hamster or a bear ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is the go programming language logo a hamster or a bear?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058186</id>
	<title>Re:Fixes problems misguided people think C++ has.</title>
	<author>bbn</author>
	<datestamp>1257075720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you ARE a language inventor and reading my comment, answer this: can you write a cache/MMU interface or an interrupt handler in your language? If the answer is no, go back to the drawing board.</p></div><p>So there is zero assembler code in the Linux kernel because C can do it all? Not so.</p><p>You do not need explicit memory management or pointer arithmetic to do these things. To write a device driver you might need the ability to access memory directly, but that could easily be done by mapping the memory region to an array.</p><p>There are incremental garbage collectors that guarantee real time performance.</p><p>It would probably be a huge benefit if the OS was written in a better language than C. One that takes a whole host of bugs out of the equation by not allowing manual memory management and pointer arithmetic.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ARE a language inventor and reading my comment , answer this : can you write a cache/MMU interface or an interrupt handler in your language ?
If the answer is no , go back to the drawing board.So there is zero assembler code in the Linux kernel because C can do it all ?
Not so.You do not need explicit memory management or pointer arithmetic to do these things .
To write a device driver you might need the ability to access memory directly , but that could easily be done by mapping the memory region to an array.There are incremental garbage collectors that guarantee real time performance.It would probably be a huge benefit if the OS was written in a better language than C. One that takes a whole host of bugs out of the equation by not allowing manual memory management and pointer arithmetic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you ARE a language inventor and reading my comment, answer this: can you write a cache/MMU interface or an interrupt handler in your language?
If the answer is no, go back to the drawing board.So there is zero assembler code in the Linux kernel because C can do it all?
Not so.You do not need explicit memory management or pointer arithmetic to do these things.
To write a device driver you might need the ability to access memory directly, but that could easily be done by mapping the memory region to an array.There are incremental garbage collectors that guarantee real time performance.It would probably be a huge benefit if the OS was written in a better language than C. One that takes a whole host of bugs out of the equation by not allowing manual memory management and pointer arithmetic.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30074940</id>
	<title>Re:C++ incomplete. C# windoz. Java slow elephant.</title>
	<author>sproketboy</author>
	<datestamp>1258050180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>8 gig for a Java app?  WTF are you doing - adding the whole app to session variables or something?</p><p>We deploy a large Java app which runs nicely under 512 on 2 gig web servers. Maybe it's time for you to go back to the books.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>8 gig for a Java app ?
WTF are you doing - adding the whole app to session variables or something ? We deploy a large Java app which runs nicely under 512 on 2 gig web servers .
Maybe it 's time for you to go back to the books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>8 gig for a Java app?
WTF are you doing - adding the whole app to session variables or something?We deploy a large Java app which runs nicely under 512 on 2 gig web servers.
Maybe it's time for you to go back to the books.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058080</id>
	<title>Missing the point</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257074580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are all missing the important point of this language (or I've not seen anyone mention it yet), and that's it's concurency model.  No, it won't replace C++ for some things, but it implements part of CSP, a VASTLY nicer model of concurrency than the traditional threads/locks model.  You try write a program using threads and locks with 1000 threads all intermingling and prove there are no race hazards or deadlocks, then try the same thing in a CSP based language (this, occam-pi, Java with JCSP, even Javascript with worker threads).  I can guarantee that for any non-trivial program this will be far easier in the CSP language, which is very important in the modern parallel market.</p><p>I was instantly happy to see this as I work in an area of concurrency research, involving a lot of CSP which most people have simply never heard of, or don't understand.  This may not replace other languages for all things, but it will hopefully be a good start point to bring CSP to the masses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are all missing the important point of this language ( or I 've not seen anyone mention it yet ) , and that 's it 's concurency model .
No , it wo n't replace C + + for some things , but it implements part of CSP , a VASTLY nicer model of concurrency than the traditional threads/locks model .
You try write a program using threads and locks with 1000 threads all intermingling and prove there are no race hazards or deadlocks , then try the same thing in a CSP based language ( this , occam-pi , Java with JCSP , even Javascript with worker threads ) .
I can guarantee that for any non-trivial program this will be far easier in the CSP language , which is very important in the modern parallel market.I was instantly happy to see this as I work in an area of concurrency research , involving a lot of CSP which most people have simply never heard of , or do n't understand .
This may not replace other languages for all things , but it will hopefully be a good start point to bring CSP to the masses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are all missing the important point of this language (or I've not seen anyone mention it yet), and that's it's concurency model.
No, it won't replace C++ for some things, but it implements part of CSP, a VASTLY nicer model of concurrency than the traditional threads/locks model.
You try write a program using threads and locks with 1000 threads all intermingling and prove there are no race hazards or deadlocks, then try the same thing in a CSP based language (this, occam-pi, Java with JCSP, even Javascript with worker threads).
I can guarantee that for any non-trivial program this will be far easier in the CSP language, which is very important in the modern parallel market.I was instantly happy to see this as I work in an area of concurrency research, involving a lot of CSP which most people have simply never heard of, or don't understand.
This may not replace other languages for all things, but it will hopefully be a good start point to bring CSP to the masses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30068104</id>
	<title>Re:Eliminating getter/setter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257084060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://live.gnome.org/Vala" title="gnome.org" rel="nofollow">Vala</a> [gnome.org] supports <a href="http://live.gnome.org/Vala/Tutorial#head-d390b727d2a77d627e6ec358a4ba5c634098c3b1" title="gnome.org" rel="nofollow">properties</a> [gnome.org] and <a href="http://live.gnome.org/Vala/Tutorial#head-8acfaacc9409368f9f494b0a55fcc2c3b7f51f6d" title="gnome.org" rel="nofollow">contract programming</a> [gnome.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vala [ gnome.org ] supports properties [ gnome.org ] and contract programming [ gnome.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vala [gnome.org] supports properties [gnome.org] and contract programming [gnome.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30066072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056940</id>
	<title>Instant Language Build-O-Matic</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1257881520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Joy, yet another programming language<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-) Programming languages are personal. We all have our favorite way to do things and most of the choices are subjective preferences. At c2.com we played around with the idea of a Build-To-Order form to generate a compiler/interpreter for a language with the combination of features you ask for. Below is a rough re-creation of the form:</p><p>-----INSTANT CUSTOM LANGUAGE FORM-----</p><p>(Features in each group are mutually-exclusive if they have round brackets, but not if square brackets. )</p><p>Compile Level</p><p>
    * (\_\_) Compiled: product of language targeted to direct run by a machine (possibly a virtual machine) or operating system.<br>
    * (\_\_) Interpreted: language is processed as data by a process called an interpreter, especially in some sort of ReadEvalPrintLoop. May support a hidden JustInTimeCompilation, but that should be considered an implementation detail rather than a language detail.<br>
    * (\_\_) Both but select on Program: language allows programs to be written for scripting or written for compilation, but programs written for compilation might not work for interpretation (e.g. due to late-binding dependencies) and programs written for interpretation might not work for compilation (e.g. due to top-level commands). This provides a lot of flexibility. However, it also partitions the user community because sharing will be difficult.<br>
    * (\_\_) Both for any Program: language ensures that every program is suitable for both compilation and interpretation. Supporting interpretation requires abandoning a model of external linking and requires ensuring the syntax is suitable for one-pass reading (i.e. preprocessors are a bad thing). Suitability for compilation implies abandoning (or at least distinguishing) imperative commands at the toplevel: those that are to be executed at compile-time vs. those that are to be executed at runtime.</p><p>Model for Linking and Modularity</p><p>
    * (\_\_) No Linking: product is always fully declared from a single page or file. No linking occurs. There is no model for modularity. Many EsotericProgrammingLanguages have this model. Support for CompileTimeResolution may provide an interesting workaround.<br>
    * (\_\_) Includes: product may 'include' other pages, which are linked in place. There might be a system to selectively avoid duplicate includes. All pages are effectively parsed with each compile or execution.<br>
    * (\_\_) Single Page, Modular: language semantics allow 'importing' or 'loading' of other components. Allows useful optimizations such as compilation of components... or at least preprocessing and pre-parsing, of language components, because the semantics of the 'import' are held independent of the page into which it was imported.<br>
    * (\_\_) External Linking: a linker can combine a product by pulling multiple components together, but does so from outside the language. This model is incompatible with interpretation, and offers no real benefits over the 'Single Page, Modular' model except that it can be hacked into a language that doesn't have a concept of modularity (as was done for CeeLanguage).</p><p>Modularity and Linkage Features</p><p>
    * [\_\_] Resolution of Circular Dependencies: the language or linker will correctly handle circular dependencies, ideally with minimal reliance on forward declarations.<br>
    * [\_\_] Provisionals and Overrides: the language allows you to override global objects, values, or procedure that are declared in other modules in a manner such that those other modules use the overrides, too. Ideal form would be as though they had always used the override, but this ideal form is somewhat difficult to reconcile this feature with interpretation.<br>
    * [\_\_] Inverted Constructs: one can automatically bui</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Joy , yet another programming language : - ) Programming languages are personal .
We all have our favorite way to do things and most of the choices are subjective preferences .
At c2.com we played around with the idea of a Build-To-Order form to generate a compiler/interpreter for a language with the combination of features you ask for .
Below is a rough re-creation of the form : -----INSTANT CUSTOM LANGUAGE FORM----- ( Features in each group are mutually-exclusive if they have round brackets , but not if square brackets .
) Compile Level * ( \ _ \ _ ) Compiled : product of language targeted to direct run by a machine ( possibly a virtual machine ) or operating system .
* ( \ _ \ _ ) Interpreted : language is processed as data by a process called an interpreter , especially in some sort of ReadEvalPrintLoop .
May support a hidden JustInTimeCompilation , but that should be considered an implementation detail rather than a language detail .
* ( \ _ \ _ ) Both but select on Program : language allows programs to be written for scripting or written for compilation , but programs written for compilation might not work for interpretation ( e.g .
due to late-binding dependencies ) and programs written for interpretation might not work for compilation ( e.g .
due to top-level commands ) .
This provides a lot of flexibility .
However , it also partitions the user community because sharing will be difficult .
* ( \ _ \ _ ) Both for any Program : language ensures that every program is suitable for both compilation and interpretation .
Supporting interpretation requires abandoning a model of external linking and requires ensuring the syntax is suitable for one-pass reading ( i.e .
preprocessors are a bad thing ) .
Suitability for compilation implies abandoning ( or at least distinguishing ) imperative commands at the toplevel : those that are to be executed at compile-time vs. those that are to be executed at runtime.Model for Linking and Modularity * ( \ _ \ _ ) No Linking : product is always fully declared from a single page or file .
No linking occurs .
There is no model for modularity .
Many EsotericProgrammingLanguages have this model .
Support for CompileTimeResolution may provide an interesting workaround .
* ( \ _ \ _ ) Includes : product may 'include ' other pages , which are linked in place .
There might be a system to selectively avoid duplicate includes .
All pages are effectively parsed with each compile or execution .
* ( \ _ \ _ ) Single Page , Modular : language semantics allow 'importing ' or 'loading ' of other components .
Allows useful optimizations such as compilation of components... or at least preprocessing and pre-parsing , of language components , because the semantics of the 'import ' are held independent of the page into which it was imported .
* ( \ _ \ _ ) External Linking : a linker can combine a product by pulling multiple components together , but does so from outside the language .
This model is incompatible with interpretation , and offers no real benefits over the 'Single Page , Modular ' model except that it can be hacked into a language that does n't have a concept of modularity ( as was done for CeeLanguage ) .Modularity and Linkage Features * [ \ _ \ _ ] Resolution of Circular Dependencies : the language or linker will correctly handle circular dependencies , ideally with minimal reliance on forward declarations .
* [ \ _ \ _ ] Provisionals and Overrides : the language allows you to override global objects , values , or procedure that are declared in other modules in a manner such that those other modules use the overrides , too .
Ideal form would be as though they had always used the override , but this ideal form is somewhat difficult to reconcile this feature with interpretation .
* [ \ _ \ _ ] Inverted Constructs : one can automatically bui</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Joy, yet another programming language :-) Programming languages are personal.
We all have our favorite way to do things and most of the choices are subjective preferences.
At c2.com we played around with the idea of a Build-To-Order form to generate a compiler/interpreter for a language with the combination of features you ask for.
Below is a rough re-creation of the form:-----INSTANT CUSTOM LANGUAGE FORM-----(Features in each group are mutually-exclusive if they have round brackets, but not if square brackets.
)Compile Level
    * (\_\_) Compiled: product of language targeted to direct run by a machine (possibly a virtual machine) or operating system.
* (\_\_) Interpreted: language is processed as data by a process called an interpreter, especially in some sort of ReadEvalPrintLoop.
May support a hidden JustInTimeCompilation, but that should be considered an implementation detail rather than a language detail.
* (\_\_) Both but select on Program: language allows programs to be written for scripting or written for compilation, but programs written for compilation might not work for interpretation (e.g.
due to late-binding dependencies) and programs written for interpretation might not work for compilation (e.g.
due to top-level commands).
This provides a lot of flexibility.
However, it also partitions the user community because sharing will be difficult.
* (\_\_) Both for any Program: language ensures that every program is suitable for both compilation and interpretation.
Supporting interpretation requires abandoning a model of external linking and requires ensuring the syntax is suitable for one-pass reading (i.e.
preprocessors are a bad thing).
Suitability for compilation implies abandoning (or at least distinguishing) imperative commands at the toplevel: those that are to be executed at compile-time vs. those that are to be executed at runtime.Model for Linking and Modularity
    * (\_\_) No Linking: product is always fully declared from a single page or file.
No linking occurs.
There is no model for modularity.
Many EsotericProgrammingLanguages have this model.
Support for CompileTimeResolution may provide an interesting workaround.
* (\_\_) Includes: product may 'include' other pages, which are linked in place.
There might be a system to selectively avoid duplicate includes.
All pages are effectively parsed with each compile or execution.
* (\_\_) Single Page, Modular: language semantics allow 'importing' or 'loading' of other components.
Allows useful optimizations such as compilation of components... or at least preprocessing and pre-parsing, of language components, because the semantics of the 'import' are held independent of the page into which it was imported.
* (\_\_) External Linking: a linker can combine a product by pulling multiple components together, but does so from outside the language.
This model is incompatible with interpretation, and offers no real benefits over the 'Single Page, Modular' model except that it can be hacked into a language that doesn't have a concept of modularity (as was done for CeeLanguage).Modularity and Linkage Features
    * [\_\_] Resolution of Circular Dependencies: the language or linker will correctly handle circular dependencies, ideally with minimal reliance on forward declarations.
* [\_\_] Provisionals and Overrides: the language allows you to override global objects, values, or procedure that are declared in other modules in a manner such that those other modules use the overrides, too.
Ideal form would be as though they had always used the override, but this ideal form is somewhat difficult to reconcile this feature with interpretation.
* [\_\_] Inverted Constructs: one can automatically bui</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059800</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>WuphonsReach</author>
	<datestamp>1257089100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>One of the earlier languages had position dependent coding (code had to start on column 3 or something like that. The name eludes me at the moment).</i> <br>
<br>
FORTRAN (GOD is real)<br>
<br>
Which was (and is) an interesting language for doing math and fractals.  I learned how to use and abuse the VAX scheduling system to batch up my fractals for late-night when nobody was online.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the earlier languages had position dependent coding ( code had to start on column 3 or something like that .
The name eludes me at the moment ) .
FORTRAN ( GOD is real ) Which was ( and is ) an interesting language for doing math and fractals .
I learned how to use and abuse the VAX scheduling system to batch up my fractals for late-night when nobody was online .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the earlier languages had position dependent coding (code had to start on column 3 or something like that.
The name eludes me at the moment).
FORTRAN (GOD is real)

Which was (and is) an interesting language for doing math and fractals.
I learned how to use and abuse the VAX scheduling system to batch up my fractals for late-night when nobody was online.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056990</id>
	<title>Re:"Systems" language?</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1257882060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Actually, you don't need pointer arithmetic for a "systems language".  Neither Ada nor the Modula family had it, and those languages have been run on bare machines with no other OS underneath.  You need the ability to explicitly place arrays in memory as a form of privileged hardware access, but it's not something that's used in most code.
</p><p>
Garbage collection, though, implies there's a layer of software underneath your code.   Garbage collectors either freeze the whole program, or need some help from the MMU to track pages altered while the collector is running.  Hard real time and reference counts do not play well together.
Reference counted systems don't inherently have that problem, and if the compiler optimizes out reference count updates they can be efficient. But most reference counted systems are slow and dumb.
</p><p>
It's sad to see yet another C++ alternative that can't actually replace C++. We need a C++ replacement.   C++ has stagnated.  C++ is the only major language to have hiding ("abstraction") without memory safety, a bad combination never tried again.  Strostrup is in denial about this being a problem, and the C++ standards committee is of in template la-la land, fussing over features few care about and fewer will use correctly.
</p><p>
The previous poster is right, though. This is a language for writing applications to run on servers.  Google needs something less painful than C++ and faster than Python.  (Python is a reasonably good language held back by an archaic naive-interpreter implementation.  Making Python fast is hard, though, because the compiler has to do type inference to figure out the variable type information the user isn't asked to provide.  ShedSkin shows that can work, but that project only has one person on it.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , you do n't need pointer arithmetic for a " systems language " .
Neither Ada nor the Modula family had it , and those languages have been run on bare machines with no other OS underneath .
You need the ability to explicitly place arrays in memory as a form of privileged hardware access , but it 's not something that 's used in most code .
Garbage collection , though , implies there 's a layer of software underneath your code .
Garbage collectors either freeze the whole program , or need some help from the MMU to track pages altered while the collector is running .
Hard real time and reference counts do not play well together .
Reference counted systems do n't inherently have that problem , and if the compiler optimizes out reference count updates they can be efficient .
But most reference counted systems are slow and dumb .
It 's sad to see yet another C + + alternative that ca n't actually replace C + + .
We need a C + + replacement .
C + + has stagnated .
C + + is the only major language to have hiding ( " abstraction " ) without memory safety , a bad combination never tried again .
Strostrup is in denial about this being a problem , and the C + + standards committee is of in template la-la land , fussing over features few care about and fewer will use correctly .
The previous poster is right , though .
This is a language for writing applications to run on servers .
Google needs something less painful than C + + and faster than Python .
( Python is a reasonably good language held back by an archaic naive-interpreter implementation .
Making Python fast is hard , though , because the compiler has to do type inference to figure out the variable type information the user is n't asked to provide .
ShedSkin shows that can work , but that project only has one person on it .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Actually, you don't need pointer arithmetic for a "systems language".
Neither Ada nor the Modula family had it, and those languages have been run on bare machines with no other OS underneath.
You need the ability to explicitly place arrays in memory as a form of privileged hardware access, but it's not something that's used in most code.
Garbage collection, though, implies there's a layer of software underneath your code.
Garbage collectors either freeze the whole program, or need some help from the MMU to track pages altered while the collector is running.
Hard real time and reference counts do not play well together.
Reference counted systems don't inherently have that problem, and if the compiler optimizes out reference count updates they can be efficient.
But most reference counted systems are slow and dumb.
It's sad to see yet another C++ alternative that can't actually replace C++.
We need a C++ replacement.
C++ has stagnated.
C++ is the only major language to have hiding ("abstraction") without memory safety, a bad combination never tried again.
Strostrup is in denial about this being a problem, and the C++ standards committee is of in template la-la land, fussing over features few care about and fewer will use correctly.
The previous poster is right, though.
This is a language for writing applications to run on servers.
Google needs something less painful than C++ and faster than Python.
(Python is a reasonably good language held back by an archaic naive-interpreter implementation.
Making Python fast is hard, though, because the compiler has to do type inference to figure out the variable type information the user isn't asked to provide.
ShedSkin shows that can work, but that project only has one person on it.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058964</id>
	<title>Re:Not Invented Here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257084060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>wake up, google os is not a rumor anymore</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>wake up , google os is not a rumor anymore</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wake up, google os is not a rumor anymore</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059654</id>
	<title>Re:Sponsored by Inspector Gadget</title>
	<author>protonics</author>
	<datestamp>1257088560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Alt Title: Sponsored by Power Rangers</htmltext>
<tokenext>Alt Title : Sponsored by Power Rangers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Alt Title: Sponsored by Power Rangers</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30116842</id>
	<title>Re:Fixes problems misguided people think C++ has.</title>
	<author>Baki</author>
	<datestamp>1258393740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Use C for that, you can link C to many languages for the low level stuff. Most kernels as far as I know are also written in C, not C++).</p><p>You can hardly link C++ to other environments, even not mix binaries from different C++ compilers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(. We had to stick with outdated options of the sunpro compiler w.r.t. partial template specialization because we link to 3rd party C++ binaries we do not have source code from.</p><p>C is fine (for its purpose), but C++ has so many problems (being responsible for a 1mio lines of C++ business application I can say that) that I don't know where to begin.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Use C for that , you can link C to many languages for the low level stuff .
Most kernels as far as I know are also written in C , not C + + ) .You can hardly link C + + to other environments , even not mix binaries from different C + + compilers : ( .
We had to stick with outdated options of the sunpro compiler w.r.t .
partial template specialization because we link to 3rd party C + + binaries we do not have source code from.C is fine ( for its purpose ) , but C + + has so many problems ( being responsible for a 1mio lines of C + + business application I can say that ) that I do n't know where to begin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Use C for that, you can link C to many languages for the low level stuff.
Most kernels as far as I know are also written in C, not C++).You can hardly link C++ to other environments, even not mix binaries from different C++ compilers :(.
We had to stick with outdated options of the sunpro compiler w.r.t.
partial template specialization because we link to 3rd party C++ binaries we do not have source code from.C is fine (for its purpose), but C++ has so many problems (being responsible for a 1mio lines of C++ business application I can say that) that I don't know where to begin.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30063650</id>
	<title>This just in...</title>
	<author>XDirtypunkX</author>
	<datestamp>1257105000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The second version of this language will be considered harmful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The second version of this language will be considered harmful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The second version of this language will be considered harmful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30063966</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>T.E.D.</author>
	<datestamp>1257105960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah yes. That language was called <em>Fortran</em>, children.

</p><p>Gather around the campfire now, and I'll tell you a really scary story about computed gotos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah yes .
That language was called Fortran , children .
Gather around the campfire now , and I 'll tell you a really scary story about computed gotos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah yes.
That language was called Fortran, children.
Gather around the campfire now, and I'll tell you a really scary story about computed gotos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058616</id>
	<title>Re:Not Invented Here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257080760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds strangely familiar - there's another monopolistic software company that tried things like this. Can't quite remember its name - Mucroshaft or something like that.</p><p>1 Do No Evil<br>2 ? ? ?<br>3 Embrace and Destroy<br>4 Profit!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds strangely familiar - there 's another monopolistic software company that tried things like this .
Ca n't quite remember its name - Mucroshaft or something like that.1 Do No Evil2 ?
? ? 3 Embrace and Destroy4 Profit !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds strangely familiar - there's another monopolistic software company that tried things like this.
Can't quite remember its name - Mucroshaft or something like that.1 Do No Evil2 ?
? ?3 Embrace and Destroy4 Profit!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064158</id>
	<title>Re:Instant Language Build-O-Matic</title>
	<author>5pp000</author>
	<datestamp>1257106620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wow, that's a great list!  I multiplied out all the options (under the assumption that all combinations are valid (*)) and got 2.8e40 possible languages that could be specified using this form.  That's a lot more than Peter Landin's 700!

</p><p>(*) Except that I noticed two options in the Collections category -- the fourth and the last -- that appear redundant; so I counted only one of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow , that 's a great list !
I multiplied out all the options ( under the assumption that all combinations are valid ( * ) ) and got 2.8e40 possible languages that could be specified using this form .
That 's a lot more than Peter Landin 's 700 !
( * ) Except that I noticed two options in the Collections category -- the fourth and the last -- that appear redundant ; so I counted only one of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow, that's a great list!
I multiplied out all the options (under the assumption that all combinations are valid (*)) and got 2.8e40 possible languages that could be specified using this form.
That's a lot more than Peter Landin's 700!
(*) Except that I noticed two options in the Collections category -- the fourth and the last -- that appear redundant; so I counted only one of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056940</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058572</id>
	<title>Re:No templates, no party.</title>
	<author>jcupitt65</author>
	<datestamp>1257080340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Finally, the built-in channel mechanism is something that can be done in C++ in less than 100 lines of code.</p></div></blockquote><p>
No it can't. Go has a segmented stack, so co-routines can be very, very small. I think they default to just a few kb. If the initial stack is too small, it grows as needed. No more stack overflows! Yay.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , the built-in channel mechanism is something that can be done in C + + in less than 100 lines of code .
No it ca n't .
Go has a segmented stack , so co-routines can be very , very small .
I think they default to just a few kb .
If the initial stack is too small , it grows as needed .
No more stack overflows !
Yay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, the built-in channel mechanism is something that can be done in C++ in less than 100 lines of code.
No it can't.
Go has a segmented stack, so co-routines can be very, very small.
I think they default to just a few kb.
If the initial stack is too small, it grows as needed.
No more stack overflows!
Yay.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30065542</id>
	<title>Re:Ummm, C++ has a string class.</title>
	<author>mbrod</author>
	<datestamp>1257069540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Agree. GC and memory management in C++ are non-issues now.<br><br>C++0x, once it gets spread around to where it needs to get spread around, brings in a lot of nice to haves I am used to getting in say Perl.<br><br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C\%2B\%2B0x<br><br>C++ just keeps getting better and better.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agree .
GC and memory management in C + + are non-issues now.C + + 0x , once it gets spread around to where it needs to get spread around , brings in a lot of nice to haves I am used to getting in say Perl.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C \ % 2B \ % 2B0xC + + just keeps getting better and better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agree.
GC and memory management in C++ are non-issues now.C++0x, once it gets spread around to where it needs to get spread around, brings in a lot of nice to haves I am used to getting in say Perl.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C\%2B\%2B0xC++ just keeps getting better and better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061272</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257095460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>python...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>python.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>python...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057734</id>
	<title>Re:Wonder?</title>
	<author>shaitand</author>
	<datestamp>1257070140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd prefer a gohome statement. That way I only have to write one line of code each day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd prefer a gohome statement .
That way I only have to write one line of code each day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd prefer a gohome statement.
That way I only have to write one line of code each day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056662</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057256</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>Toonol</author>
	<datestamp>1257107640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that's already there?</i> <br> <br>

Because enforcing strict rules about indenting and how it's interpreted is more oppressive and error-prone than using brackets?  I agree with your FIRST paragraph...</htmltext>
<tokenext>why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that 's already there ?
Because enforcing strict rules about indenting and how it 's interpreted is more oppressive and error-prone than using brackets ?
I agree with your FIRST paragraph.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that's already there?
Because enforcing strict rules about indenting and how it's interpreted is more oppressive and error-prone than using brackets?
I agree with your FIRST paragraph...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057800</id>
	<title>Re:C++ incomplete. C# windoz. Java slow elephant.</title>
	<author>shaitand</author>
	<datestamp>1257071040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The string class example was bogus but he has a point. It does seem like every library wants everything stored as its own special type of whatever. Including strings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The string class example was bogus but he has a point .
It does seem like every library wants everything stored as its own special type of whatever .
Including strings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The string class example was bogus but he has a point.
It does seem like every library wants everything stored as its own special type of whatever.
Including strings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30070212</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258017120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For that matter, why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that's already there?</p></div><p>One example: The syntax for defining function literals on-the-fly (e.g. as parameters to another function) is much easier to define.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For that matter , why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that 's already there ? One example : The syntax for defining function literals on-the-fly ( e.g .
as parameters to another function ) is much easier to define .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For that matter, why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that's already there?One example: The syntax for defining function literals on-the-fly (e.g.
as parameters to another function) is much easier to define.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060516</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257092340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IBM's RPG language was fixed format columns until version IV offered a "free format" option.  If you never had to experience this kind of programming then be very thankful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IBM 's RPG language was fixed format columns until version IV offered a " free format " option .
If you never had to experience this kind of programming then be very thankful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IBM's RPG language was fixed format columns until version IV offered a "free format" option.
If you never had to experience this kind of programming then be very thankful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057440</id>
	<title>Re:Build-in function library</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1257066540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Whenever Google announces something, you have to make the decision... jump on it immediately and get ahead of the curve, but risk wasting all that time if it doesn't take off? Or wait?</p></div><p>That makes it sound like you're going to fall hopelessly behind "the curve" if you don't jump on a successful product.
</p><p>
That woudl be a helluva frantic life to live.  It's just technology in the end.  There are thousands of new technological ideas, innovations, and products coming out every year.   The choice you really need to make is this: a) figure out what you want to do, then look for the technology that best supports it... or b) focus on a couple of Big Names, learn the neat new technological toys they release, then begin searching desperately for something problem to solve with them.
</p><p>
One of those two options nets you a solution to a problem at hand.  The other nets you solutions in search of problems, with perhaps a bit more opportunity to play with fun toys along the way.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whenever Google announces something , you have to make the decision... jump on it immediately and get ahead of the curve , but risk wasting all that time if it does n't take off ?
Or wait ? That makes it sound like you 're going to fall hopelessly behind " the curve " if you do n't jump on a successful product .
That woudl be a helluva frantic life to live .
It 's just technology in the end .
There are thousands of new technological ideas , innovations , and products coming out every year .
The choice you really need to make is this : a ) figure out what you want to do , then look for the technology that best supports it... or b ) focus on a couple of Big Names , learn the neat new technological toys they release , then begin searching desperately for something problem to solve with them .
One of those two options nets you a solution to a problem at hand .
The other nets you solutions in search of problems , with perhaps a bit more opportunity to play with fun toys along the way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whenever Google announces something, you have to make the decision... jump on it immediately and get ahead of the curve, but risk wasting all that time if it doesn't take off?
Or wait?That makes it sound like you're going to fall hopelessly behind "the curve" if you don't jump on a successful product.
That woudl be a helluva frantic life to live.
It's just technology in the end.
There are thousands of new technological ideas, innovations, and products coming out every year.
The choice you really need to make is this: a) figure out what you want to do, then look for the technology that best supports it... or b) focus on a couple of Big Names, learn the neat new technological toys they release, then begin searching desperately for something problem to solve with them.
One of those two options nets you a solution to a problem at hand.
The other nets you solutions in search of problems, with perhaps a bit more opportunity to play with fun toys along the way.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056594</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057596</id>
	<title>Re:Fixes problems misguided people think C++ has.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257068460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hahaha writing an interrupt handler in C++<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... you've got to be kidding, surely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hahaha writing an interrupt handler in C + + .... you 've got to be kidding , surely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hahaha writing an interrupt handler in C++ .... you've got to be kidding, surely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060906</id>
	<title>Re:Fixes problems misguided people think C++ has.</title>
	<author>smellsofbikes</author>
	<datestamp>1257093960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For the record, you can weld aluminum perfectly well with an oxy-acetylene torch or a mig welder using shielding gas, but at the end of the day, tig is almost always the best way to weld any metal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>For the record , you can weld aluminum perfectly well with an oxy-acetylene torch or a mig welder using shielding gas , but at the end of the day , tig is almost always the best way to weld any metal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the record, you can weld aluminum perfectly well with an oxy-acetylene torch or a mig welder using shielding gas, but at the end of the day, tig is almost always the best way to weld any metal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058632</id>
	<title>No exceptions? Really?</title>
	<author>RzUpAnmsCwrds</author>
	<datestamp>1257080880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go seems to suffer from the problem of not being done. Case in point: exceptions.</p><p><a href="http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.xml#Exceptions" title="googlecode.com">Google's C++ style guide</a> [googlecode.com] forbids exceptions. This is because of historical reasons - Google's codebase is not exception-tolerant.</p><p>Because Go doesn't have exceptions, programmers won't write exception-safe code. Since Go is garbage-collected, this is less of an issue compared with C++, but there are still cases where things like file handles or external resources need to be cleaned up.</p><p>Two, three, or four years down the road, it's going to be hard to use exceptions in Go, because the existing code that's out there won't inter-operate properly with code that throws exceptions.</p><p>In my opinion, exceptions are absolutely, positively critical in a modern imparative programming language. Exceptional conditions happen. Parsers get data in the wrong format. Network requests time out. Hardware fails.</p><p>There are some exceptional conditions that should never happen, and if they do they should kill the system and print something that lets you track down the problem. Exceptions provide this behavior for free; simply don't catch them and you get at least a stack trace when they occur.</p><p>The alternative is to write a bunch of error handling code to print out debugging information and exit. Then you call it from everywhere that one of these critical errors occurs.</p><p>Except, what if you want to handle one of these critical errors? What if you're calling code that exits if it fails, but you want to report errors in a different way? What if the exceptional case is supposed to happen, like if you're writing unit tests?</p><p>The other type of error isn't critical. Maybe it's a network timeout or a parsing error, neither of which should probably crash the system (in most cases). Here, you want to handle the error and take some action, like re-sending the data or asking for input from the user again.</p><p>Error codes work here, except that they're cumbersome. Want to include information on exactly what kind of a parser error occurred? Now you're going to have to return both an error code and an error string. Maybe you'll even return an error object.</p><p>What if the error occurs in a private method (lowercase first letter in Go) that's called by the public method (uppercase first letter in Go)? With exceptions, you just throw in the private method. With error codes, you need to check for an error code in the public method when you call the private method, then pass the error along.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go seems to suffer from the problem of not being done .
Case in point : exceptions.Google 's C + + style guide [ googlecode.com ] forbids exceptions .
This is because of historical reasons - Google 's codebase is not exception-tolerant.Because Go does n't have exceptions , programmers wo n't write exception-safe code .
Since Go is garbage-collected , this is less of an issue compared with C + + , but there are still cases where things like file handles or external resources need to be cleaned up.Two , three , or four years down the road , it 's going to be hard to use exceptions in Go , because the existing code that 's out there wo n't inter-operate properly with code that throws exceptions.In my opinion , exceptions are absolutely , positively critical in a modern imparative programming language .
Exceptional conditions happen .
Parsers get data in the wrong format .
Network requests time out .
Hardware fails.There are some exceptional conditions that should never happen , and if they do they should kill the system and print something that lets you track down the problem .
Exceptions provide this behavior for free ; simply do n't catch them and you get at least a stack trace when they occur.The alternative is to write a bunch of error handling code to print out debugging information and exit .
Then you call it from everywhere that one of these critical errors occurs.Except , what if you want to handle one of these critical errors ?
What if you 're calling code that exits if it fails , but you want to report errors in a different way ?
What if the exceptional case is supposed to happen , like if you 're writing unit tests ? The other type of error is n't critical .
Maybe it 's a network timeout or a parsing error , neither of which should probably crash the system ( in most cases ) .
Here , you want to handle the error and take some action , like re-sending the data or asking for input from the user again.Error codes work here , except that they 're cumbersome .
Want to include information on exactly what kind of a parser error occurred ?
Now you 're going to have to return both an error code and an error string .
Maybe you 'll even return an error object.What if the error occurs in a private method ( lowercase first letter in Go ) that 's called by the public method ( uppercase first letter in Go ) ?
With exceptions , you just throw in the private method .
With error codes , you need to check for an error code in the public method when you call the private method , then pass the error along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go seems to suffer from the problem of not being done.
Case in point: exceptions.Google's C++ style guide [googlecode.com] forbids exceptions.
This is because of historical reasons - Google's codebase is not exception-tolerant.Because Go doesn't have exceptions, programmers won't write exception-safe code.
Since Go is garbage-collected, this is less of an issue compared with C++, but there are still cases where things like file handles or external resources need to be cleaned up.Two, three, or four years down the road, it's going to be hard to use exceptions in Go, because the existing code that's out there won't inter-operate properly with code that throws exceptions.In my opinion, exceptions are absolutely, positively critical in a modern imparative programming language.
Exceptional conditions happen.
Parsers get data in the wrong format.
Network requests time out.
Hardware fails.There are some exceptional conditions that should never happen, and if they do they should kill the system and print something that lets you track down the problem.
Exceptions provide this behavior for free; simply don't catch them and you get at least a stack trace when they occur.The alternative is to write a bunch of error handling code to print out debugging information and exit.
Then you call it from everywhere that one of these critical errors occurs.Except, what if you want to handle one of these critical errors?
What if you're calling code that exits if it fails, but you want to report errors in a different way?
What if the exceptional case is supposed to happen, like if you're writing unit tests?The other type of error isn't critical.
Maybe it's a network timeout or a parsing error, neither of which should probably crash the system (in most cases).
Here, you want to handle the error and take some action, like re-sending the data or asking for input from the user again.Error codes work here, except that they're cumbersome.
Want to include information on exactly what kind of a parser error occurred?
Now you're going to have to return both an error code and an error string.
Maybe you'll even return an error object.What if the error occurs in a private method (lowercase first letter in Go) that's called by the public method (uppercase first letter in Go)?
With exceptions, you just throw in the private method.
With error codes, you need to check for an error code in the public method when you call the private method, then pass the error along.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058658</id>
	<title>Re:C++ incomplete. C# windoz. Java slow elephant.</title>
	<author>marco13185</author>
	<datestamp>1257081240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>C# is not a windows only language at all.  Mono is a pretty complete implementation of the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET Framework on Linux (with some good progress on OS X).  A lot of really cool apps, such as Beagle, Banshee, F-Spot, Tomboy, and Gnome-Do, are written for Mono.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>C # is not a windows only language at all .
Mono is a pretty complete implementation of the .NET Framework on Linux ( with some good progress on OS X ) .
A lot of really cool apps , such as Beagle , Banshee , F-Spot , Tomboy , and Gnome-Do , are written for Mono .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C# is not a windows only language at all.
Mono is a pretty complete implementation of the .NET Framework on Linux (with some good progress on OS X).
A lot of really cool apps, such as Beagle, Banshee, F-Spot, Tomboy, and Gnome-Do, are written for Mono.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057556</id>
	<title>Re:"Go" name already taken for programming languag</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257068100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like GOOP<br>Google Object Oriented Programming language</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like GOOPGoogle Object Oriented Programming language</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like GOOPGoogle Object Oriented Programming language</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057162</id>
	<title>Re:Well said</title>
	<author>shawnmchorse</author>
	<datestamp>1257106440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With the board game you basically have to search for the Chinese and/or Korean name equivalents instead, which are "weiqi" and "baduk".  Perhaps Google Asia can can come up with different names that people can actually search for also...:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With the board game you basically have to search for the Chinese and/or Korean name equivalents instead , which are " weiqi " and " baduk " .
Perhaps Google Asia can can come up with different names that people can actually search for also... : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With the board game you basically have to search for the Chinese and/or Korean name equivalents instead, which are "weiqi" and "baduk".
Perhaps Google Asia can can come up with different names that people can actually search for also...:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057044</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057284</id>
	<title>Re:I suppose this is Windows-only once again...</title>
	<author>RocketRabbit</author>
	<datestamp>1257107880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>See, being open source, the idea is to \_port\_ it to your system or something clever like that.</p><p>When Linux came out it was i386 only.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>See , being open source , the idea is to \ _port \ _ it to your system or something clever like that.When Linux came out it was i386 only .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>See, being open source, the idea is to \_port\_ it to your system or something clever like that.When Linux came out it was i386 only.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30065878</id>
	<title>Re:What has the world come to...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257071400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oldsters hold back and have held back progress in all fields. They should retire already and shut up so that the bottleneck to progress will be eliminated. We need fresh ideas, rather than propogandizing for stuff that should have died a long time ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oldsters hold back and have held back progress in all fields .
They should retire already and shut up so that the bottleneck to progress will be eliminated .
We need fresh ideas , rather than propogandizing for stuff that should have died a long time ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oldsters hold back and have held back progress in all fields.
They should retire already and shut up so that the bottleneck to progress will be eliminated.
We need fresh ideas, rather than propogandizing for stuff that should have died a long time ago.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056918</id>
	<title>Re:"Systems" language?</title>
	<author>cheesecake23</author>
	<datestamp>1257881280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is too much competition from other fresh and well regarded "new" languages for yet another new entrant to gain much headway without something really novel to attract attention.</p></div><p>Personally I think that with C-like syntax, Javascript-like garbage collection, closures and general simplicity, ridiculously straightforward concurrent programming constructs, a novel relaxed approach to Object Orientation and backing by Google, this will be a language to keep an eye on.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is too much competition from other fresh and well regarded " new " languages for yet another new entrant to gain much headway without something really novel to attract attention.Personally I think that with C-like syntax , Javascript-like garbage collection , closures and general simplicity , ridiculously straightforward concurrent programming constructs , a novel relaxed approach to Object Orientation and backing by Google , this will be a language to keep an eye on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is too much competition from other fresh and well regarded "new" languages for yet another new entrant to gain much headway without something really novel to attract attention.Personally I think that with C-like syntax, Javascript-like garbage collection, closures and general simplicity, ridiculously straightforward concurrent programming constructs, a novel relaxed approach to Object Orientation and backing by Google, this will be a language to keep an eye on.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056570</id>
	<title>Re:Build-in function library</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257878040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps it's designed to be embedded, like LUA or Javascript? In that case, comprehensive libraries aren't necessary or even desirable.</p><p>Or, more likely, they just did the fun part of designing the language, and are leaving the hard part of creating libraries to somebody else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps it 's designed to be embedded , like LUA or Javascript ?
In that case , comprehensive libraries are n't necessary or even desirable.Or , more likely , they just did the fun part of designing the language , and are leaving the hard part of creating libraries to somebody else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps it's designed to be embedded, like LUA or Javascript?
In that case, comprehensive libraries aren't necessary or even desirable.Or, more likely, they just did the fun part of designing the language, and are leaving the hard part of creating libraries to somebody else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059408</id>
	<title>Re:Google search "Go"</title>
	<author>oodaloop</author>
	<datestamp>1257087480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, it's new.  Maybe Google's crawlers didn't find it yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , it 's new .
Maybe Google 's crawlers did n't find it yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, it's new.
Maybe Google's crawlers didn't find it yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059876</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>wideBlueSkies</author>
	<datestamp>1257089400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder how many times Guido has had to bear listening to that complaint about Python...</p><p>Not that I disagree, I dislike the tab based definition too..brackets defining blocks just works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder how many times Guido has had to bear listening to that complaint about Python...Not that I disagree , I dislike the tab based definition too..brackets defining blocks just works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder how many times Guido has had to bear listening to that complaint about Python...Not that I disagree, I dislike the tab based definition too..brackets defining blocks just works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057256</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058884</id>
	<title>You must have missed the Go specification...</title>
	<author>flithm</author>
	<datestamp>1257083280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>C++'s templates offer a lot more than just generics (which is what you're talking about when you say "type safe containers and reusable algorithms"), however Go does, in fact, provide for this with its "interfaces."  The Go interface affords for both data abstraction (akin to C++'s inheritance hierarchy), and generic programming.  Go provides an "Any" container, which "<a href="http://golang.org/doc/go\_for\_cpp\_programmers.html#Interfaces" title="golang.org">may be used to implement generic programming similar to templates in C++</a> [golang.org]".</p><p>It's worth noting though that this is a dynamically bound language feature, which means it is checked and enforced at runtime rather than compile time -- both a positive and a negative depending on how you look at it.  It provides for some more interesting programs to be written that do fun things at runtime, but on the down side it means you lose a lot of the compile time type-checking that C++ provides and can save a lot of debugging time later on.  It also means that you can't do any template metaprogramming with Go -- again which can be viewed as a positive or a negative.</p><p>I also challenge you to come up with a solution that equates to Go's built in Channel's in less than 100 lines of C++.  What you're actually saying is you "can implement Go's Goroutine's AND Channels in less than 100 lines of code in portable, cross platform, C++".  But, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you've already go some mechanism for emulating a Goroutine (which by the way allows one to "mutiplex independently executing functions onto a set of threads").  I think \_just\_ the thread safe code that would implement all the necessary locks and barriers for a \_single\_ platform would probably be more than 100 lines, and would not be portable (ie, it would be pthreads, or win32 specific).</p><p>I am open to being wrong about that, but I really do believe that you haven't spent much time investigating Go, and are therefore spreading FUD.  For example your assertion that "in Go, a List class would have to use void* types, throwing type safety out of the window" is just plain wrong.</p><p>I should also point out that I am in no way a Google Go fanboy.  I see it as a pseudo-interesting low-ish level language that I haven't quite been able to envision the proper use for yet.  I don't really buy Google's claim that it's a system level language (I can't see myself wanting to write an OS or device driver in it).  To me it seems more like a great way to rapidly build efficient client / server type applications.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>C + + 's templates offer a lot more than just generics ( which is what you 're talking about when you say " type safe containers and reusable algorithms " ) , however Go does , in fact , provide for this with its " interfaces .
" The Go interface affords for both data abstraction ( akin to C + + 's inheritance hierarchy ) , and generic programming .
Go provides an " Any " container , which " may be used to implement generic programming similar to templates in C + + [ golang.org ] " .It 's worth noting though that this is a dynamically bound language feature , which means it is checked and enforced at runtime rather than compile time -- both a positive and a negative depending on how you look at it .
It provides for some more interesting programs to be written that do fun things at runtime , but on the down side it means you lose a lot of the compile time type-checking that C + + provides and can save a lot of debugging time later on .
It also means that you ca n't do any template metaprogramming with Go -- again which can be viewed as a positive or a negative.I also challenge you to come up with a solution that equates to Go 's built in Channel 's in less than 100 lines of C + + .
What you 're actually saying is you " can implement Go 's Goroutine 's AND Channels in less than 100 lines of code in portable , cross platform , C + + " .
But , let 's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you 've already go some mechanism for emulating a Goroutine ( which by the way allows one to " mutiplex independently executing functions onto a set of threads " ) .
I think \ _just \ _ the thread safe code that would implement all the necessary locks and barriers for a \ _single \ _ platform would probably be more than 100 lines , and would not be portable ( ie , it would be pthreads , or win32 specific ) .I am open to being wrong about that , but I really do believe that you have n't spent much time investigating Go , and are therefore spreading FUD .
For example your assertion that " in Go , a List class would have to use void * types , throwing type safety out of the window " is just plain wrong.I should also point out that I am in no way a Google Go fanboy .
I see it as a pseudo-interesting low-ish level language that I have n't quite been able to envision the proper use for yet .
I do n't really buy Google 's claim that it 's a system level language ( I ca n't see myself wanting to write an OS or device driver in it ) .
To me it seems more like a great way to rapidly build efficient client / server type applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C++'s templates offer a lot more than just generics (which is what you're talking about when you say "type safe containers and reusable algorithms"), however Go does, in fact, provide for this with its "interfaces.
"  The Go interface affords for both data abstraction (akin to C++'s inheritance hierarchy), and generic programming.
Go provides an "Any" container, which "may be used to implement generic programming similar to templates in C++ [golang.org]".It's worth noting though that this is a dynamically bound language feature, which means it is checked and enforced at runtime rather than compile time -- both a positive and a negative depending on how you look at it.
It provides for some more interesting programs to be written that do fun things at runtime, but on the down side it means you lose a lot of the compile time type-checking that C++ provides and can save a lot of debugging time later on.
It also means that you can't do any template metaprogramming with Go -- again which can be viewed as a positive or a negative.I also challenge you to come up with a solution that equates to Go's built in Channel's in less than 100 lines of C++.
What you're actually saying is you "can implement Go's Goroutine's AND Channels in less than 100 lines of code in portable, cross platform, C++".
But, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you've already go some mechanism for emulating a Goroutine (which by the way allows one to "mutiplex independently executing functions onto a set of threads").
I think \_just\_ the thread safe code that would implement all the necessary locks and barriers for a \_single\_ platform would probably be more than 100 lines, and would not be portable (ie, it would be pthreads, or win32 specific).I am open to being wrong about that, but I really do believe that you haven't spent much time investigating Go, and are therefore spreading FUD.
For example your assertion that "in Go, a List class would have to use void* types, throwing type safety out of the window" is just plain wrong.I should also point out that I am in no way a Google Go fanboy.
I see it as a pseudo-interesting low-ish level language that I haven't quite been able to envision the proper use for yet.
I don't really buy Google's claim that it's a system level language (I can't see myself wanting to write an OS or device driver in it).
To me it seems more like a great way to rapidly build efficient client / server type applications.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059480</id>
	<title>Re:Google search "Go"</title>
	<author>Sponge Bath</author>
	<datestamp>1257087780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Og", so easy a caveman can use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Og " , so easy a caveman can use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Og", so easy a caveman can use it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057066</id>
	<title>Re:Sponsored by Inspector Gadget</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1257882780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>$ go<br>No<br>$</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>$ goNo $</tokentext>
<sentencetext>$ goNo$</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30069754</id>
	<title>Re:Not for Android</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1257101160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Dalvik is not a stack architecture like most virtual (and real) CPUs, but is instead a register architecture</p></div><p>Most real CPUs (definitely all mainstream ones) are register machines, not stack machines. "Register architecture" doesn't mean that you do not have a stack at all. It just means that there is no data stack that is used for basic operations like addition (in a typical stack machine, like JVM or CLR, you have to do it as "push left operand; push right operand; add; pop result"). Register machines still have a call stack.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dalvik is not a stack architecture like most virtual ( and real ) CPUs , but is instead a register architectureMost real CPUs ( definitely all mainstream ones ) are register machines , not stack machines .
" Register architecture " does n't mean that you do not have a stack at all .
It just means that there is no data stack that is used for basic operations like addition ( in a typical stack machine , like JVM or CLR , you have to do it as " push left operand ; push right operand ; add ; pop result " ) .
Register machines still have a call stack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dalvik is not a stack architecture like most virtual (and real) CPUs, but is instead a register architectureMost real CPUs (definitely all mainstream ones) are register machines, not stack machines.
"Register architecture" doesn't mean that you do not have a stack at all.
It just means that there is no data stack that is used for basic operations like addition (in a typical stack machine, like JVM or CLR, you have to do it as "push left operand; push right operand; add; pop result").
Register machines still have a call stack.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30069530</id>
	<title>Re:"Systems" language?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1257098640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Actually, you don't need pointer arithmetic for a "systems language". Neither Ada nor the Modula family had it, and those languages have been run on bare machines with no other OS underneath.</p></div><p>Modula-2 has both pointer arithmetics, and unsafe (e.g. bit-preserving integer-to-pointer) casts. The fact that POINTER is a keyword in the language kinda gives a clue:</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>VAR p : POINTER TO INTEGER;<br>p^<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:= 123; (* segfault *)</tt></p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , you do n't need pointer arithmetic for a " systems language " .
Neither Ada nor the Modula family had it , and those languages have been run on bare machines with no other OS underneath.Modula-2 has both pointer arithmetics , and unsafe ( e.g .
bit-preserving integer-to-pointer ) casts .
The fact that POINTER is a keyword in the language kinda gives a clue : VAR p : POINTER TO INTEGER ; p ^ : = 123 ; ( * segfault * )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, you don't need pointer arithmetic for a "systems language".
Neither Ada nor the Modula family had it, and those languages have been run on bare machines with no other OS underneath.Modula-2 has both pointer arithmetics, and unsafe (e.g.
bit-preserving integer-to-pointer) casts.
The fact that POINTER is a keyword in the language kinda gives a clue: VAR p : POINTER TO INTEGER;p^ := 123; (* segfault *) 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846</id>
	<title>Fixes problems misguided people think C++ has.</title>
	<author>pslam</author>
	<datestamp>1257880500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go has garbage collection and lacks pointer arithmetic. So... it won't replace C++, then?
</p><p>Why was that so easy and quick to say? I really don't understand the repeated banging-head-against-wall that language inventors are doing. There's a good reason why C++ is still in wide and very popular use: precisely because it <i>does</i> have explicit memory management and pointer arithmetic. C++ is a static, explicit language. Go is not. It will <i>not</i> replace C++, and no language will until that is understood.
</p><p>The problems C++ need fixing are elsewhere. The syntax needs cleaning up. The ABI needs rationalizing between architectures. Multiple inheritance needs some taming (ditch 'virtual' multiple inheritance - it's insane), but not removing. Interface-only classes need promoting to a full type rather than inferred from being 100\% pure virtual (and even then there's usually a non-pure-virtual destructor for stupid foot-bullet-avoiding reasons). There needs to be saner syntactic sugar for repeated operations (like python's 'with' keyword). Templates syntax needs to be less verbose and more automatic (already being worked on for C++0x but at this rate will be C++1x, keyword 'auto').
</p><p>Stop trying to replace C++ with a language that does not fulfill every aspect C++ covers. If you ARE a language inventor and reading my comment, answer this: can you write a cache/MMU interface or an interrupt handler in your language? If the answer is no, go back to the drawing board.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go has garbage collection and lacks pointer arithmetic .
So... it wo n't replace C + + , then ?
Why was that so easy and quick to say ?
I really do n't understand the repeated banging-head-against-wall that language inventors are doing .
There 's a good reason why C + + is still in wide and very popular use : precisely because it does have explicit memory management and pointer arithmetic .
C + + is a static , explicit language .
Go is not .
It will not replace C + + , and no language will until that is understood .
The problems C + + need fixing are elsewhere .
The syntax needs cleaning up .
The ABI needs rationalizing between architectures .
Multiple inheritance needs some taming ( ditch 'virtual ' multiple inheritance - it 's insane ) , but not removing .
Interface-only classes need promoting to a full type rather than inferred from being 100 \ % pure virtual ( and even then there 's usually a non-pure-virtual destructor for stupid foot-bullet-avoiding reasons ) .
There needs to be saner syntactic sugar for repeated operations ( like python 's 'with ' keyword ) .
Templates syntax needs to be less verbose and more automatic ( already being worked on for C + + 0x but at this rate will be C + + 1x , keyword 'auto ' ) .
Stop trying to replace C + + with a language that does not fulfill every aspect C + + covers .
If you ARE a language inventor and reading my comment , answer this : can you write a cache/MMU interface or an interrupt handler in your language ?
If the answer is no , go back to the drawing board .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go has garbage collection and lacks pointer arithmetic.
So... it won't replace C++, then?
Why was that so easy and quick to say?
I really don't understand the repeated banging-head-against-wall that language inventors are doing.
There's a good reason why C++ is still in wide and very popular use: precisely because it does have explicit memory management and pointer arithmetic.
C++ is a static, explicit language.
Go is not.
It will not replace C++, and no language will until that is understood.
The problems C++ need fixing are elsewhere.
The syntax needs cleaning up.
The ABI needs rationalizing between architectures.
Multiple inheritance needs some taming (ditch 'virtual' multiple inheritance - it's insane), but not removing.
Interface-only classes need promoting to a full type rather than inferred from being 100\% pure virtual (and even then there's usually a non-pure-virtual destructor for stupid foot-bullet-avoiding reasons).
There needs to be saner syntactic sugar for repeated operations (like python's 'with' keyword).
Templates syntax needs to be less verbose and more automatic (already being worked on for C++0x but at this rate will be C++1x, keyword 'auto').
Stop trying to replace C++ with a language that does not fulfill every aspect C++ covers.
If you ARE a language inventor and reading my comment, answer this: can you write a cache/MMU interface or an interrupt handler in your language?
If the answer is no, go back to the drawing board.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056648</id>
	<title>Not actually safe</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257878640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>From a brief review of the language and implementation, this doesn't appear to use what we've learned about correctness over the last thirty years.
Buffer overflows are just one bug class among dozens, and if you're going to create a language from scratch, why let integers overflow without making people explicitly request that behavior? Why ignore what we've learned about verification and formal languages?
Microsoft has actually been far more responsible about this recently, thanks to the Java people they hired (Rustan etc); see <a href="http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/projects/specsharp/" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">Spec#</a> [microsoft.com] for details.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From a brief review of the language and implementation , this does n't appear to use what we 've learned about correctness over the last thirty years .
Buffer overflows are just one bug class among dozens , and if you 're going to create a language from scratch , why let integers overflow without making people explicitly request that behavior ?
Why ignore what we 've learned about verification and formal languages ?
Microsoft has actually been far more responsible about this recently , thanks to the Java people they hired ( Rustan etc ) ; see Spec # [ microsoft.com ] for details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From a brief review of the language and implementation, this doesn't appear to use what we've learned about correctness over the last thirty years.
Buffer overflows are just one bug class among dozens, and if you're going to create a language from scratch, why let integers overflow without making people explicitly request that behavior?
Why ignore what we've learned about verification and formal languages?
Microsoft has actually been far more responsible about this recently, thanks to the Java people they hired (Rustan etc); see Spec# [microsoft.com] for details.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30065894</id>
	<title>Fast compile times?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257071460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In terms of speed, they report compiling 120,000 lines under 10 seconds for Go on a laptop. On the Mono project they report compiling 18,000 lines of C# per second on a t40 Thinkpad. So Google's Go compiler written in C/C++ is slower than the Mono C# compiler written in managed code? Impressive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In terms of speed , they report compiling 120,000 lines under 10 seconds for Go on a laptop .
On the Mono project they report compiling 18,000 lines of C # per second on a t40 Thinkpad .
So Google 's Go compiler written in C/C + + is slower than the Mono C # compiler written in managed code ?
Impressive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In terms of speed, they report compiling 120,000 lines under 10 seconds for Go on a laptop.
On the Mono project they report compiling 18,000 lines of C# per second on a t40 Thinkpad.
So Google's Go compiler written in C/C++ is slower than the Mono C# compiler written in managed code?
Impressive.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30063686</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257105060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>One of the earlier languages had position dependent coding (code had to start on column 3 or something like that.  The name eludes me at the moment).</p></div><p>That would be FORTRAN 77, which also limited lines to a total of 80 characters although line continuation was supported.  This restriction was removed with Fortran 90 which supports free form code.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the earlier languages had position dependent coding ( code had to start on column 3 or something like that .
The name eludes me at the moment ) .That would be FORTRAN 77 , which also limited lines to a total of 80 characters although line continuation was supported .
This restriction was removed with Fortran 90 which supports free form code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the earlier languages had position dependent coding (code had to start on column 3 or something like that.
The name eludes me at the moment).That would be FORTRAN 77, which also limited lines to a total of 80 characters although line continuation was supported.
This restriction was removed with Fortran 90 which supports free form code.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059200</id>
	<title>Re:C++ incomplete. C# windoz. Java slow elephant.</title>
	<author>gbjbaanb</author>
	<datestamp>1257085980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in the day, C++ was pretty much C code written with some nicer syntax features. the lack of a string class really doesn't make much of a muchness.</p><p>Hell, even today, C++ is (well, should, you know some people overengineer C++ code so every little thing is a multiply-inherited object) pretty much C code packaged up with a nicer syntax. And some STL and Boost thrown in to make some things simpler.</p><p>C# - suffers the same memory issues as Java. Practically *is* Java really.</p><p>So Go.. add a common library of useful stuff and it could be a killer language, especially if Google drops their Java-based language they hacked up for Android and starts to use it for everything. Lets hope it doesn't become just another entry in the <a href="http://99-bottles-of-beer.net/language-go!-289.html" title="99-bottles-of-beer.net">'99 bottles of beer'</a> [99-bottles-of-beer.net] list. They're going to have to rename it though<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the day , C + + was pretty much C code written with some nicer syntax features .
the lack of a string class really does n't make much of a muchness.Hell , even today , C + + is ( well , should , you know some people overengineer C + + code so every little thing is a multiply-inherited object ) pretty much C code packaged up with a nicer syntax .
And some STL and Boost thrown in to make some things simpler.C # - suffers the same memory issues as Java .
Practically * is * Java really.So Go.. add a common library of useful stuff and it could be a killer language , especially if Google drops their Java-based language they hacked up for Android and starts to use it for everything .
Lets hope it does n't become just another entry in the '99 bottles of beer ' [ 99-bottles-of-beer.net ] list .
They 're going to have to rename it though ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the day, C++ was pretty much C code written with some nicer syntax features.
the lack of a string class really doesn't make much of a muchness.Hell, even today, C++ is (well, should, you know some people overengineer C++ code so every little thing is a multiply-inherited object) pretty much C code packaged up with a nicer syntax.
And some STL and Boost thrown in to make some things simpler.C# - suffers the same memory issues as Java.
Practically *is* Java really.So Go.. add a common library of useful stuff and it could be a killer language, especially if Google drops their Java-based language they hacked up for Android and starts to use it for everything.
Lets hope it doesn't become just another entry in the '99 bottles of beer' [99-bottles-of-beer.net] list.
They're going to have to rename it though ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059098</id>
	<title>Re:"Systems" language?</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1257085140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I could see it as a 'system' language as in 'write applications in it'.</p><p>Not scripts, not embedded functionalities, not CGI, and no, not servers.<br>Just a typical "double click to start" applications that you install on your desktop computer, which serve a thousand various purposes. The kind of stuff you write in Delphi or Visual C++. Fast and easy to write, fast and easy to run. Not too far from the OS to require squeezing through 50 abstraction layers, not too raw to bother with kernel routine calls to do basic stuff. Not too abstract and high level to slow it down to a crawl like Ruby, not too low-level to be overly dangerous like C.</p><p>It's placed somewhere between C and C++ on the "level highness" scale, doing some things that were long overdue in C++ natively, but not compromising performance for stuff like advanced inheritance, exception handling and such.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I could see it as a 'system ' language as in 'write applications in it'.Not scripts , not embedded functionalities , not CGI , and no , not servers.Just a typical " double click to start " applications that you install on your desktop computer , which serve a thousand various purposes .
The kind of stuff you write in Delphi or Visual C + + .
Fast and easy to write , fast and easy to run .
Not too far from the OS to require squeezing through 50 abstraction layers , not too raw to bother with kernel routine calls to do basic stuff .
Not too abstract and high level to slow it down to a crawl like Ruby , not too low-level to be overly dangerous like C.It 's placed somewhere between C and C + + on the " level highness " scale , doing some things that were long overdue in C + + natively , but not compromising performance for stuff like advanced inheritance , exception handling and such .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I could see it as a 'system' language as in 'write applications in it'.Not scripts, not embedded functionalities, not CGI, and no, not servers.Just a typical "double click to start" applications that you install on your desktop computer, which serve a thousand various purposes.
The kind of stuff you write in Delphi or Visual C++.
Fast and easy to write, fast and easy to run.
Not too far from the OS to require squeezing through 50 abstraction layers, not too raw to bother with kernel routine calls to do basic stuff.
Not too abstract and high level to slow it down to a crawl like Ruby, not too low-level to be overly dangerous like C.It's placed somewhere between C and C++ on the "level highness" scale, doing some things that were long overdue in C++ natively, but not compromising performance for stuff like advanced inheritance, exception handling and such.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057108</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257105720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"..sure DVORAK might provide 20\% faster typing if you work at it for 3 years, but that's not really enough to warrant the switch."</p><p>Sure, if you're typing code, but if you were typing documents it would be a big advantage. I don't know where you get the 3 years idea - DVORAK is much easier to learn than QWERTY.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ..sure DVORAK might provide 20 \ % faster typing if you work at it for 3 years , but that 's not really enough to warrant the switch .
" Sure , if you 're typing code , but if you were typing documents it would be a big advantage .
I do n't know where you get the 3 years idea - DVORAK is much easier to learn than QWERTY .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"..sure DVORAK might provide 20\% faster typing if you work at it for 3 years, but that's not really enough to warrant the switch.
"Sure, if you're typing code, but if you were typing documents it would be a big advantage.
I don't know where you get the 3 years idea - DVORAK is much easier to learn than QWERTY.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061600</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257096660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FORTRAN.<br>1-5 are statement labels for GOTOs &amp; Co, 6 is line continuation, 7-73 is for code, 73+ is ignored (can be comments).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FORTRAN.1-5 are statement labels for GOTOs &amp; Co , 6 is line continuation , 7-73 is for code , 73 + is ignored ( can be comments ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FORTRAN.1-5 are statement labels for GOTOs &amp; Co, 6 is line continuation, 7-73 is for code, 73+ is ignored (can be comments).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056838</id>
	<title>Re:I suppose this is Windows-only once again...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257880440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It almost certainly will be frozen over, so weather won't be a problem. But with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell,\_Norway" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">a population of 352</a> [wikipedia.org], I suppose lack of infrastructure could be a problem for having Winter Olympics in Hell.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It almost certainly will be frozen over , so weather wo n't be a problem .
But with a population of 352 [ wikipedia.org ] , I suppose lack of infrastructure could be a problem for having Winter Olympics in Hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It almost certainly will be frozen over, so weather won't be a problem.
But with a population of 352 [wikipedia.org], I suppose lack of infrastructure could be a problem for having Winter Olympics in Hell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057966</id>
	<title>Obligatory 99 bottles of beers example</title>
	<author>gurkmannen</author>
	<datestamp>1257073500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>package main<br><br>import (<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; "os";<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; "fmt";<br>)<br><br>const bottlecount int = 99<br><br>func bots(b int) string {<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; if b &gt; 1 {<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; return fmt.Sprintf("\%d bottles", b)<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; }<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; if b == 1 {<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; return "1 bottle"<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; }<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; return "No more bottles"<br>}<br><br>func main() {<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; for i<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:= bottlecount; i &gt; 0; i-- {<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; b<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:= bots(i);<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; os.Stdout.WriteString(b + " of beer on the wall, ");<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; os.Stdout.WriteString(b + " of beer.\n");<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; os.Stdout.WriteString("Take one down and pass it around, ");<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; os.Stdout.WriteString(bots(i - 1) + " of beer on the wall.\n\n");<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; }<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; os.Stdout.WriteString("No bottles of beer on the wall, no bottles of beer.\n");<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; os.Stdout.WriteString("Go to the store and buy some more, ");<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; os.Stdout.WriteString(bots(bottlecount) + " of beer on the wall.\n");<br>}<br></tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>package mainimport (         " os " ;         " fmt " ; ) const bottlecount int = 99func bots ( b int ) string {         if b &gt; 1 {                 return fmt.Sprintf ( " \ % d bottles " , b )         }         if b = = 1 {                 return " 1 bottle "         }         return " No more bottles " } func main ( ) {         for i : = bottlecount ; i &gt; 0 ; i-- {                 b : = bots ( i ) ;                 os.Stdout.WriteString ( b + " of beer on the wall , " ) ;                 os.Stdout.WriteString ( b + " of beer. \ n " ) ;                 os.Stdout.WriteString ( " Take one down and pass it around , " ) ;                 os.Stdout.WriteString ( bots ( i - 1 ) + " of beer on the wall. \ n \ n " ) ;         }         os.Stdout.WriteString ( " No bottles of beer on the wall , no bottles of beer. \ n " ) ;         os.Stdout.WriteString ( " Go to the store and buy some more , " ) ;         os.Stdout.WriteString ( bots ( bottlecount ) + " of beer on the wall. \ n " ) ; }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>package mainimport (        "os";        "fmt";)const bottlecount int = 99func bots(b int) string {        if b &gt; 1 {                return fmt.Sprintf("\%d bottles", b)        }        if b == 1 {                return "1 bottle"        }        return "No more bottles"}func main() {        for i := bottlecount; i &gt; 0; i-- {                b := bots(i);                os.Stdout.WriteString(b + " of beer on the wall, ");                os.Stdout.WriteString(b + " of beer.\n");                os.Stdout.WriteString("Take one down and pass it around, ");                os.Stdout.WriteString(bots(i - 1) + " of beer on the wall.\n\n");        }        os.Stdout.WriteString("No bottles of beer on the wall, no bottles of beer.\n");        os.Stdout.WriteString("Go to the store and buy some more, ");        os.Stdout.WriteString(bots(bottlecount) + " of beer on the wall.\n");}</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30075804</id>
	<title>Re:Eliminating getter/setter</title>
	<author>Bob Uhl</author>
	<datestamp>1258052640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Take a look at this Common Lisp:<blockquote><div><p>(defclass a ()
           ((b<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:accessor b<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:initform 1<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:type (integer 0 100))))</p></div> </blockquote><p>Although it's up to your implementation whether or not to enforce the type declaration.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a look at this Common Lisp : ( defclass a ( ) ( ( b : accessor b : initform 1 : type ( integer 0 100 ) ) ) ) Although it 's up to your implementation whether or not to enforce the type declaration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take a look at this Common Lisp:(defclass a ()
           ((b :accessor b :initform 1 :type (integer 0 100)))) Although it's up to your implementation whether or not to enforce the type declaration.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30066072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064026</id>
	<title>Re:Not actually safe</title>
	<author>metamatic</author>
	<datestamp>1257106200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>From a brief review of the language and implementation, this doesn't appear to use what we've learned about correctness over the last thirty years.</p></div></blockquote><p>Nor does any other language in common use. I remember during my CS degree skipping a bunch of denotational semantics and provability stuff, thinking "Pah, nobody's ever going to use this". And 20 years later, I've yet to see it in the real world.</p><p>Sure, there are a few embedded systems and chip designs that are proven correct. But 99.99\% of systems out there aren't even up-to-date with what we knew about correctness 20 years ago.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From a brief review of the language and implementation , this does n't appear to use what we 've learned about correctness over the last thirty years.Nor does any other language in common use .
I remember during my CS degree skipping a bunch of denotational semantics and provability stuff , thinking " Pah , nobody 's ever going to use this " .
And 20 years later , I 've yet to see it in the real world.Sure , there are a few embedded systems and chip designs that are proven correct .
But 99.99 \ % of systems out there are n't even up-to-date with what we knew about correctness 20 years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From a brief review of the language and implementation, this doesn't appear to use what we've learned about correctness over the last thirty years.Nor does any other language in common use.
I remember during my CS degree skipping a bunch of denotational semantics and provability stuff, thinking "Pah, nobody's ever going to use this".
And 20 years later, I've yet to see it in the real world.Sure, there are a few embedded systems and chip designs that are proven correct.
But 99.99\% of systems out there aren't even up-to-date with what we knew about correctness 20 years ago.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30067246</id>
	<title>Re:No exceptions? Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257077880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Every argument against using "goto" in programming languages also applies to the use of exceptions.</p><p>It always astonishes me when programmers agree about the benefit of avoiding (or minimially using) the "goto" statement; but then they embrace the extensive use of exceptions without a moment's reflection that exceptions are nothing but a more complicated version of the "goto" statement.</p><p>Exceptions are cross-function "gotos" without the benefit of greppable labels to see where you came from, or where you're going.</p><p>"Goto" creates spaghetti code.  Exceptions create spaghetti code, except that it can be difficult for some programmers to immediately see that it's spaghetti -- they only discover that it turned out to be spaghetti while they're trying to understand the flow of control that lead to the chain of exceptions that they're currently debugging.</p><p>A library that throws everything is like a library that's filled with thousands of "gotos", but the "gotos" can go anywhere, and the source/target pairs are totally unidentifiable without runtime analysis.</p><p>I agree that it's worthwhile to try to develop a good solution to the problem of unexpected conditions.  But solving the problem by resurrecting the "goto" statement under a different name is a huge step backward.  Go back and find a solution that doesn't encourage programmers to create an unanalyzable pile of spaghetti code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Every argument against using " goto " in programming languages also applies to the use of exceptions.It always astonishes me when programmers agree about the benefit of avoiding ( or minimially using ) the " goto " statement ; but then they embrace the extensive use of exceptions without a moment 's reflection that exceptions are nothing but a more complicated version of the " goto " statement.Exceptions are cross-function " gotos " without the benefit of greppable labels to see where you came from , or where you 're going .
" Goto " creates spaghetti code .
Exceptions create spaghetti code , except that it can be difficult for some programmers to immediately see that it 's spaghetti -- they only discover that it turned out to be spaghetti while they 're trying to understand the flow of control that lead to the chain of exceptions that they 're currently debugging.A library that throws everything is like a library that 's filled with thousands of " gotos " , but the " gotos " can go anywhere , and the source/target pairs are totally unidentifiable without runtime analysis.I agree that it 's worthwhile to try to develop a good solution to the problem of unexpected conditions .
But solving the problem by resurrecting the " goto " statement under a different name is a huge step backward .
Go back and find a solution that does n't encourage programmers to create an unanalyzable pile of spaghetti code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every argument against using "goto" in programming languages also applies to the use of exceptions.It always astonishes me when programmers agree about the benefit of avoiding (or minimially using) the "goto" statement; but then they embrace the extensive use of exceptions without a moment's reflection that exceptions are nothing but a more complicated version of the "goto" statement.Exceptions are cross-function "gotos" without the benefit of greppable labels to see where you came from, or where you're going.
"Goto" creates spaghetti code.
Exceptions create spaghetti code, except that it can be difficult for some programmers to immediately see that it's spaghetti -- they only discover that it turned out to be spaghetti while they're trying to understand the flow of control that lead to the chain of exceptions that they're currently debugging.A library that throws everything is like a library that's filled with thousands of "gotos", but the "gotos" can go anywhere, and the source/target pairs are totally unidentifiable without runtime analysis.I agree that it's worthwhile to try to develop a good solution to the problem of unexpected conditions.
But solving the problem by resurrecting the "goto" statement under a different name is a huge step backward.
Go back and find a solution that doesn't encourage programmers to create an unanalyzable pile of spaghetti code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30066952</id>
	<title>Re:Eliminating getter/setter</title>
	<author>cananian</author>
	<datestamp>1257076200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Take a look at javascript, especially ES5.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a look at javascript , especially ES5 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take a look at javascript, especially ES5.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30066072</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061608</id>
	<title>Re:Fixes problems misguided people think C++ has.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257096660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>We are not all writing an OS, so why the hell do we all need to be using a language that can write an OS</i></p><p>Because at some point you *do* have to interface with the operating system, and if you're using the same language used to write the OS, it's a lot easier to do, not to mention being faster.  Look at all of the hoops Java has to jump through with the JNI interface to execute native code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are not all writing an OS , so why the hell do we all need to be using a language that can write an OSBecause at some point you * do * have to interface with the operating system , and if you 're using the same language used to write the OS , it 's a lot easier to do , not to mention being faster .
Look at all of the hoops Java has to jump through with the JNI interface to execute native code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> We are not all writing an OS, so why the hell do we all need to be using a language that can write an OSBecause at some point you *do* have to interface with the operating system, and if you're using the same language used to write the OS, it's a lot easier to do, not to mention being faster.
Look at all of the hoops Java has to jump through with the JNI interface to execute native code.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057574</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059940</id>
	<title>Re:No templates, no party.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257089700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed.</p><p>From <a href="http://golang.org/src/pkg/container/list/list.go" title="golang.org" rel="nofollow">http://golang.org/src/pkg/container/list/list.go</a> [golang.org] we can see that they're using Go's "interface{}" (C "void*" / Java "Object").</p><p>They're just going to run straight into the Collections issues Java had when it introduced generics and had to retrofit them to the non-generic existing Collections without breaking backward compatibility.</p><p>I think that they should note that the language will be in flux whilst they decide whether to do generics now, or leave it to screw up compatibility later.</p><p>I mean, they tried with the built-in map: <tt>map[string]int</tt> even though the syntax sucks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed.From http : //golang.org/src/pkg/container/list/list.go [ golang.org ] we can see that they 're using Go 's " interface { } " ( C " void * " / Java " Object " ) .They 're just going to run straight into the Collections issues Java had when it introduced generics and had to retrofit them to the non-generic existing Collections without breaking backward compatibility.I think that they should note that the language will be in flux whilst they decide whether to do generics now , or leave it to screw up compatibility later.I mean , they tried with the built-in map : map [ string ] int even though the syntax sucks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.From http://golang.org/src/pkg/container/list/list.go [golang.org] we can see that they're using Go's "interface{}" (C "void*" / Java "Object").They're just going to run straight into the Collections issues Java had when it introduced generics and had to retrofit them to the non-generic existing Collections without breaking backward compatibility.I think that they should note that the language will be in flux whilst they decide whether to do generics now, or leave it to screw up compatibility later.I mean, they tried with the built-in map: map[string]int even though the syntax sucks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059810</id>
	<title>Re:Holy Shitbags Binaries Are Static And *Huge*</title>
	<author>hansamurai</author>
	<datestamp>1257089100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>In Java it was 519 bytes.<br><br>public class Hello<br>{<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; public static void main(String... args)<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; {<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; System.out.println("hello, world");<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; }<br>}</tt></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Java it was 519 bytes.public class Hello {     public static void main ( String... args )     {         System.out.println ( " hello , world " ) ;     } }</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Java it was 519 bytes.public class Hello{    public static void main(String... args)    {        System.out.println("hello, world");    }}</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058844</id>
	<title>Re:Not Invented Here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257082920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And of course there's always those rumours of the Google OS...</p></div><p>Android ring a bell?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And of course there 's always those rumours of the Google OS...Android ring a bell ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And of course there's always those rumours of the Google OS...Android ring a bell?
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30070368</id>
	<title>Re:"Go" name already taken for programming languag</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258019160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>0\% of 1 user recommends this project</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>0 \ % of 1 user recommends this project</tokentext>
<sentencetext>0\% of 1 user recommends this project</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056984</id>
	<title>Re:Google search "Go"</title>
	<author>reSonans</author>
	<datestamp>1257882060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And what's with their mascot? It's cute, but my first impression was an accelerating potato.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And what 's with their mascot ?
It 's cute , but my first impression was an accelerating potato .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And what's with their mascot?
It's cute, but my first impression was an accelerating potato.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056514</id>
	<title>I suppose this is Windows-only once again...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257877560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Go compilers support two operating systems (Linux, Mac OS X) and three instruction sets.</p></div></blockquote><p>Can somebody call hell to see if they can host the next Winter Olympics?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go compilers support two operating systems ( Linux , Mac OS X ) and three instruction sets.Can somebody call hell to see if they can host the next Winter Olympics ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go compilers support two operating systems (Linux, Mac OS X) and three instruction sets.Can somebody call hell to see if they can host the next Winter Olympics?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057130</id>
	<title>Re:Sponsored by Inspector Gadget</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257105960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*Guitar riff* dun DUN dun dun dun.. dun DUN dun dun dun..</p><p>*Cue background images of Google developers doing random gymnastics moves and changing into Google colored fighting suits*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* Guitar riff * dun DUN dun dun dun.. dun DUN dun dun dun.. * Cue background images of Google developers doing random gymnastics moves and changing into Google colored fighting suits *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*Guitar riff* dun DUN dun dun dun.. dun DUN dun dun dun..*Cue background images of Google developers doing random gymnastics moves and changing into Google colored fighting suits*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058082</id>
	<title>Re:Google search "Go"</title>
	<author>wvmarle</author>
	<datestamp>1257074580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have never heard such a complaint about certain other language's names... such as "C". So it doesn't seem to be too much of a problem.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have never heard such a complaint about certain other language 's names... such as " C " .
So it does n't seem to be too much of a problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have never heard such a complaint about certain other language's names... such as "C".
So it doesn't seem to be too much of a problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061148</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257094920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Python has significant whitespace, I love it, the only problems I ever have with it are if I have a clause that is too long (and should really be made its own function) that I have to 'unindent' correctly, python recognizes the difference between 3 and 4 spaces as significant, so it can be annoying at times.</p><p>Personally, I like that the language forces me (and others) to indent properly, I do just wish that the IDEs for it tended to allow for changes of indentation (our work standard is 3 spaces, the official python standard seems to be 4, it is a pain to switch manually, and I just haven't wanted to build a converter myself).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Python has significant whitespace , I love it , the only problems I ever have with it are if I have a clause that is too long ( and should really be made its own function ) that I have to 'unindent ' correctly , python recognizes the difference between 3 and 4 spaces as significant , so it can be annoying at times.Personally , I like that the language forces me ( and others ) to indent properly , I do just wish that the IDEs for it tended to allow for changes of indentation ( our work standard is 3 spaces , the official python standard seems to be 4 , it is a pain to switch manually , and I just have n't wanted to build a converter myself ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Python has significant whitespace, I love it, the only problems I ever have with it are if I have a clause that is too long (and should really be made its own function) that I have to 'unindent' correctly, python recognizes the difference between 3 and 4 spaces as significant, so it can be annoying at times.Personally, I like that the language forces me (and others) to indent properly, I do just wish that the IDEs for it tended to allow for changes of indentation (our work standard is 3 spaces, the official python standard seems to be 4, it is a pain to switch manually, and I just haven't wanted to build a converter myself).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057278</id>
	<title>Re:I suppose this is Windows-only once again...</title>
	<author>UnderCoverPenguin</author>
	<datestamp>1257107880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can somebody call hell to see if they can host the next Winter Olympics?</p></div><p>As of this writing (2:34 AM EST, November 11, 2009), Hell is reporting -1.61 C (29.1 F).</p><p>(http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/hdfForecast?query=Hell\%2C+MI&amp;searchType=WEATHER)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can somebody call hell to see if they can host the next Winter Olympics ? As of this writing ( 2 : 34 AM EST , November 11 , 2009 ) , Hell is reporting -1.61 C ( 29.1 F ) .
( http : //www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/hdfForecast ? query = Hell \ % 2C + MI&amp;searchType = WEATHER )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can somebody call hell to see if they can host the next Winter Olympics?As of this writing (2:34 AM EST, November 11, 2009), Hell is reporting -1.61 C (29.1 F).
(http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/hdfForecast?query=Hell\%2C+MI&amp;searchType=WEATHER)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056514</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056796</id>
	<title>C++ incomplete.  C# windoz. Java slow elephant.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257879900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been around for a long time.</p><p>C great language did exactly what it was designed to do.  But carries a lot of burden.<br>C++ come on it didn't even have a string class.  Thus pointer math hell.<br>C#,  Ok it learned a lesson and found the joy of a string class.  But really it's a windows only lang.<br>Java.  Excuse me web apps that take 8Gig of ram spread across a farm of servers.  This slow elephant remade the hardware business.</p><p>All of the above never really understood concurrent / multithread / parallel. ( Sorry Java devs still have issues with the concept. GC &amp; log4j come to mind as things that forgot they were in a threaded env. )</p><p>So the "Go" lang it just might deserve a look.  Clearly web centric.  Clearly built for tons of concurrent comms. Recompiles in a blip thus useful for real time compiling alla jsp.  I'm very performance centric.  If I can replace my J2EE bloat ware with a trunk full of tiny Go apps I will.</p><p>I'm definitely watching this space for developments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been around for a long time.C great language did exactly what it was designed to do .
But carries a lot of burden.C + + come on it did n't even have a string class .
Thus pointer math hell.C # , Ok it learned a lesson and found the joy of a string class .
But really it 's a windows only lang.Java .
Excuse me web apps that take 8Gig of ram spread across a farm of servers .
This slow elephant remade the hardware business.All of the above never really understood concurrent / multithread / parallel .
( Sorry Java devs still have issues with the concept .
GC &amp; log4j come to mind as things that forgot they were in a threaded env .
) So the " Go " lang it just might deserve a look .
Clearly web centric .
Clearly built for tons of concurrent comms .
Recompiles in a blip thus useful for real time compiling alla jsp .
I 'm very performance centric .
If I can replace my J2EE bloat ware with a trunk full of tiny Go apps I will.I 'm definitely watching this space for developments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been around for a long time.C great language did exactly what it was designed to do.
But carries a lot of burden.C++ come on it didn't even have a string class.
Thus pointer math hell.C#,  Ok it learned a lesson and found the joy of a string class.
But really it's a windows only lang.Java.
Excuse me web apps that take 8Gig of ram spread across a farm of servers.
This slow elephant remade the hardware business.All of the above never really understood concurrent / multithread / parallel.
( Sorry Java devs still have issues with the concept.
GC &amp; log4j come to mind as things that forgot they were in a threaded env.
)So the "Go" lang it just might deserve a look.
Clearly web centric.
Clearly built for tons of concurrent comms.
Recompiles in a blip thus useful for real time compiling alla jsp.
I'm very performance centric.
If I can replace my J2EE bloat ware with a trunk full of tiny Go apps I will.I'm definitely watching this space for developments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30065204</id>
	<title>Semicolons</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257067860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The release of a new programming language and another opportunity squandered to ditch semicolon statement terminators forever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The release of a new programming language and another opportunity squandered to ditch semicolon statement terminators forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The release of a new programming language and another opportunity squandered to ditch semicolon statement terminators forever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058120</id>
	<title>No templates, no party.</title>
	<author>master\_p</author>
	<datestamp>1257074940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Templates is one of C++'s advantage over any other language (except D that implements them). Without templates, type safe containers and reusable algorithms cannot be implemented. For example, in Go, a List class would have to use void* types, throwing type safety out of the window.</p><p>The syntax is also not that good. That the type goes after the variable name, the missing parentheses in 'if' and 'for' statements are syntactic changes that offer no better readability over C.</p><p>Finally, the built-in channel mechanism is something that can be done in C++ in less than 100 lines of code.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Templates is one of C + + 's advantage over any other language ( except D that implements them ) .
Without templates , type safe containers and reusable algorithms can not be implemented .
For example , in Go , a List class would have to use void * types , throwing type safety out of the window.The syntax is also not that good .
That the type goes after the variable name , the missing parentheses in 'if ' and 'for ' statements are syntactic changes that offer no better readability over C.Finally , the built-in channel mechanism is something that can be done in C + + in less than 100 lines of code .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Templates is one of C++'s advantage over any other language (except D that implements them).
Without templates, type safe containers and reusable algorithms cannot be implemented.
For example, in Go, a List class would have to use void* types, throwing type safety out of the window.The syntax is also not that good.
That the type goes after the variable name, the missing parentheses in 'if' and 'for' statements are syntactic changes that offer no better readability over C.Finally, the built-in channel mechanism is something that can be done in C++ in less than 100 lines of code.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058682</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>glwtta</author>
	<datestamp>1257081420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>For that matter, why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that's already there?</i>
<br> <br>
For someone who's apparently half way through his first "Intro to Programming" class, that's a pretty bold leap into the Holy War.
<br> <br>
(for the record: some of us like brackets - get over it)</htmltext>
<tokenext>For that matter , why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that 's already there ?
For someone who 's apparently half way through his first " Intro to Programming " class , that 's a pretty bold leap into the Holy War .
( for the record : some of us like brackets - get over it )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For that matter, why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that's already there?
For someone who's apparently half way through his first "Intro to Programming" class, that's a pretty bold leap into the Holy War.
(for the record: some of us like brackets - get over it)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30065510</id>
	<title>But the real question is...</title>
	<author>SarekOfVulcan</author>
	<datestamp>1257069360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Has anyone implemented <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go\_(game)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Go</a> [wikipedia.org] in Go yet?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone implemented Go [ wikipedia.org ] in Go yet ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone implemented Go [wikipedia.org] in Go yet?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061412</id>
	<title>Re:C++ incomplete. C# windoz. Java slow elephant.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257096060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, there's always FORTRAN... it does have very good multithreading/concurrency support, and is definitely fast.<br>Oh, wait, you want string manipulation?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , there 's always FORTRAN... it does have very good multithreading/concurrency support , and is definitely fast.Oh , wait , you want string manipulation ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, there's always FORTRAN... it does have very good multithreading/concurrency support, and is definitely fast.Oh, wait, you want string manipulation?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30068294</id>
	<title>Re:No templates, no party.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257085860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>error: &lsquo;testObj::~testObj()&rsquo; is private<br>It has all the useful information. The issue is with the way it is presented to the user. If instead of textwall, it were presented in a form similar to a stack trace it would be much more programmer-friendly. don't paint compiler's inefficiencies as weakness of language feature.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>../test.cpp: In destructor &lsquo;std::pair::~pair()&rsquo;:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/include/c++/4.3/bits/stl\_pair.h:73: instantiated from<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &lsquo;void \_\_gnu\_cxx::new\_allocator::destroy(\_Tp*) [with \_Tp = std::pair]&rsquo;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/include/c++/4.3/bits/stl\_tree.h:390: instantiated from<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &lsquo;void std::\_Rb\_tree::\_M\_destroy\_node(std::\_Rb\_tree\_node*) [with \_Key = int, \_Val = std::pair, \_KeyOfValue = std::\_Select1st &gt;, \_Compare = std::less, \_Alloc = std::allocator &gt;]&rsquo;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/include/c++/4.3/bits/stl\_tree.h:943: instantiated from<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &lsquo;void std::\_Rb\_tree::\_M\_erase(std::\_Rb\_tree\_node*) [with \_Key = int, \_Val = std::pair, \_KeyOfValue = std::\_Select1st &gt;, \_Compare = std::less, \_Alloc = std::allocator &gt;]&rsquo;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/include/c++/4.3/bits/stl\_tree.h:585: instantiated from<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &lsquo;std::\_Rb\_tree::~\_Rb\_tree() [with \_Key = int, \_Val = std::pair, \_KeyOfValue = std::\_Select1st &gt;, \_Compare = std::less, \_Alloc = std::allocator &gt;]&rsquo;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/include/c++/4.3/bits/stl\_map.h:92: instantiated from here<nobr> <wbr></nobr>../test.cpp:11:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; error: &lsquo;testObj::~testObj()&rsquo; is private</p><p>Add some coloring to that to distinguish between code tokens, filenames, line numbers. I agree that C++ template and namespace syntax is cumbersome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>error :    testObj : : ~ testObj ( )    is privateIt has all the useful information .
The issue is with the way it is presented to the user .
If instead of textwall , it were presented in a form similar to a stack trace it would be much more programmer-friendly .
do n't paint compiler 's inefficiencies as weakness of language feature .
../test.cpp : In destructor    std : : pair : : ~ pair ( )    : /usr/include/c + + /4.3/bits/stl \ _pair.h : 73 : instantiated from            void \ _ \ _gnu \ _cxx : : new \ _allocator : : destroy ( \ _Tp * ) [ with \ _Tp = std : : pair ]    /usr/include/c + + /4.3/bits/stl \ _tree.h : 390 : instantiated from            void std : : \ _Rb \ _tree : : \ _M \ _destroy \ _node ( std : : \ _Rb \ _tree \ _node * ) [ with \ _Key = int , \ _Val = std : : pair , \ _KeyOfValue = std : : \ _Select1st &gt; , \ _Compare = std : : less , \ _Alloc = std : : allocator &gt; ]    /usr/include/c + + /4.3/bits/stl \ _tree.h : 943 : instantiated from            void std : : \ _Rb \ _tree : : \ _M \ _erase ( std : : \ _Rb \ _tree \ _node * ) [ with \ _Key = int , \ _Val = std : : pair , \ _KeyOfValue = std : : \ _Select1st &gt; , \ _Compare = std : : less , \ _Alloc = std : : allocator &gt; ]    /usr/include/c + + /4.3/bits/stl \ _tree.h : 585 : instantiated from            std : : \ _Rb \ _tree : : ~ \ _Rb \ _tree ( ) [ with \ _Key = int , \ _Val = std : : pair , \ _KeyOfValue = std : : \ _Select1st &gt; , \ _Compare = std : : less , \ _Alloc = std : : allocator &gt; ]    /usr/include/c + + /4.3/bits/stl \ _map.h : 92 : instantiated from here ../test.cpp : 11 :         error :    testObj : : ~ testObj ( )    is privateAdd some coloring to that to distinguish between code tokens , filenames , line numbers .
I agree that C + + template and namespace syntax is cumbersome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>error: ‘testObj::~testObj()’ is privateIt has all the useful information.
The issue is with the way it is presented to the user.
If instead of textwall, it were presented in a form similar to a stack trace it would be much more programmer-friendly.
don't paint compiler's inefficiencies as weakness of language feature.
../test.cpp: In destructor ‘std::pair::~pair()’: /usr/include/c++/4.3/bits/stl\_pair.h:73: instantiated from
        ‘void \_\_gnu\_cxx::new\_allocator::destroy(\_Tp*) [with \_Tp = std::pair]’ /usr/include/c++/4.3/bits/stl\_tree.h:390: instantiated from
        ‘void std::\_Rb\_tree::\_M\_destroy\_node(std::\_Rb\_tree\_node*) [with \_Key = int, \_Val = std::pair, \_KeyOfValue = std::\_Select1st &gt;, \_Compare = std::less, \_Alloc = std::allocator &gt;]’ /usr/include/c++/4.3/bits/stl\_tree.h:943: instantiated from
        ‘void std::\_Rb\_tree::\_M\_erase(std::\_Rb\_tree\_node*) [with \_Key = int, \_Val = std::pair, \_KeyOfValue = std::\_Select1st &gt;, \_Compare = std::less, \_Alloc = std::allocator &gt;]’ /usr/include/c++/4.3/bits/stl\_tree.h:585: instantiated from
        ‘std::\_Rb\_tree::~\_Rb\_tree() [with \_Key = int, \_Val = std::pair, \_KeyOfValue = std::\_Select1st &gt;, \_Compare = std::less, \_Alloc = std::allocator &gt;]’ /usr/include/c++/4.3/bits/stl\_map.h:92: instantiated from here ../test.cpp:11:
        error: ‘testObj::~testObj()’ is privateAdd some coloring to that to distinguish between code tokens, filenames, line numbers.
I agree that C++ template and namespace syntax is cumbersome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061928</id>
	<title>Re:Google search "Go"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257097920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which really sucks because I already have problems when I try to search for "Go" the board game. Now I'm going to get results from a programming language mixed in as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which really sucks because I already have problems when I try to search for " Go " the board game .
Now I 'm going to get results from a programming language mixed in as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which really sucks because I already have problems when I try to search for "Go" the board game.
Now I'm going to get results from a programming language mixed in as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061506</id>
	<title>Re:Google search "Go"</title>
	<author>Opyros</author>
	<datestamp>1257096360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Which is why any web page about the board game Go ought to have the Korean name "Baduk" on it somewhere &mdash; it's unambiguous and makes googling much easier for Go players.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is why any web page about the board game Go ought to have the Korean name " Baduk " on it somewhere    it 's unambiguous and makes googling much easier for Go players .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is why any web page about the board game Go ought to have the Korean name "Baduk" on it somewhere — it's unambiguous and makes googling much easier for Go players.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058618</id>
	<title>Dev's worst nightmare!</title>
	<author>L4t3r4lu5</author>
	<datestamp>1257080820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> A video illustrates just how fast compilation is: the entire language, 120K lines, compiles in under 10 sec. on a laptop</p></div><p>When would dev's ever have time for <a href="http://xkcd.com/303/" title="xkcd.com">wheelie-chair sword duels?!</a> [xkcd.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A video illustrates just how fast compilation is : the entire language , 120K lines , compiles in under 10 sec .
on a laptopWhen would dev 's ever have time for wheelie-chair sword duels ? !
[ xkcd.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> A video illustrates just how fast compilation is: the entire language, 120K lines, compiles in under 10 sec.
on a laptopWhen would dev's ever have time for wheelie-chair sword duels?!
[xkcd.com]
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30068426</id>
	<title>Re:No exceptions? Really?</title>
	<author>lennier</author>
	<datestamp>1257086700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Case in point: exceptions."</p><p>Aren't exceptions just one specialised application of continuations?  So why not just provide generalised continuation support?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Case in point : exceptions .
" Are n't exceptions just one specialised application of continuations ?
So why not just provide generalised continuation support ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Case in point: exceptions.
"Aren't exceptions just one specialised application of continuations?
So why not just provide generalised continuation support?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058632</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061496</id>
	<title>Re:No templates, no party.</title>
	<author>hazah</author>
	<datestamp>1257096360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You do realize that the only relevant piece of information are only in the last 2 lines? <p>"/usr/include/c++/4.3/bits/stl\_map.h:92: instantiated from here<nobr> <wbr></nobr>../test.cpp:11: error: &lsquo;testObj::~testObj()&rsquo; is private<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/include/c++/4.3/bits/stl\_pair.h:73: error: within this context<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/include/c++/4.3/ext/new\_allocator.h: In member function &lsquo;void \_\_gnu\_cxx::new\_allocator::destroy(\_Tp*) [with \_Tp = std::pair]&rsquo;:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/usr/include/c++/4.3/ext/new\_allocator.h:118: note: synthesized method &lsquo;std::pair::~pair()&rsquo; first required here"</p><p>You'd think, after seeing this happen around 5 times you'd know where to start looking, geez.</p><p>On a more to the point note: Templates, being what they are, can either allow what they allow, or give better error messages, but not both. Having a construct that can only be validated during instantiation is a double edge sword. Powerful if you can tame the beast. Dangerous and difficult if you cannot.
</p><p>Concepts would have alleviated some of these issues at the price of tightening the requirement set, presenting its own set of trade offs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You do realize that the only relevant piece of information are only in the last 2 lines ?
" /usr/include/c + + /4.3/bits/stl \ _map.h : 92 : instantiated from here ../test.cpp : 11 : error :    testObj : : ~ testObj ( )    is private /usr/include/c + + /4.3/bits/stl \ _pair.h : 73 : error : within this context /usr/include/c + + /4.3/ext/new \ _allocator.h : In member function    void \ _ \ _gnu \ _cxx : : new \ _allocator : : destroy ( \ _Tp * ) [ with \ _Tp = std : : pair ]    : /usr/include/c + + /4.3/ext/new \ _allocator.h : 118 : note : synthesized method    std : : pair : : ~ pair ( )    first required here " You 'd think , after seeing this happen around 5 times you 'd know where to start looking , geez.On a more to the point note : Templates , being what they are , can either allow what they allow , or give better error messages , but not both .
Having a construct that can only be validated during instantiation is a double edge sword .
Powerful if you can tame the beast .
Dangerous and difficult if you can not .
Concepts would have alleviated some of these issues at the price of tightening the requirement set , presenting its own set of trade offs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You do realize that the only relevant piece of information are only in the last 2 lines?
"/usr/include/c++/4.3/bits/stl\_map.h:92: instantiated from here ../test.cpp:11: error: ‘testObj::~testObj()’ is private /usr/include/c++/4.3/bits/stl\_pair.h:73: error: within this context /usr/include/c++/4.3/ext/new\_allocator.h: In member function ‘void \_\_gnu\_cxx::new\_allocator::destroy(\_Tp*) [with \_Tp = std::pair]’: /usr/include/c++/4.3/ext/new\_allocator.h:118: note: synthesized method ‘std::pair::~pair()’ first required here"You'd think, after seeing this happen around 5 times you'd know where to start looking, geez.On a more to the point note: Templates, being what they are, can either allow what they allow, or give better error messages, but not both.
Having a construct that can only be validated during instantiation is a double edge sword.
Powerful if you can tame the beast.
Dangerous and difficult if you cannot.
Concepts would have alleviated some of these issues at the price of tightening the requirement set, presenting its own set of trade offs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064272</id>
	<title>Re:"Go" name already taken for programming languag</title>
	<author>T.E.D.</author>
	<datestamp>1257107100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I guarantee you some enterprising squatter has already gone out and registered the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.org for every alternate name mentioned in that thread too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I guarantee you some enterprising squatter has already gone out and registered the .com and .org for every alternate name mentioned in that thread too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I guarantee you some enterprising squatter has already gone out and registered the .com and .org for every alternate name mentioned in that thread too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>Imagix</author>
	<datestamp>1257069480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For that matter, why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that's already there?</p></div><p>Are you insane?  Have you ever written a parser?  And being dependent on particular whitespace is really asking for trouble.  Now, are those tabs or spaces?  How many spaces?  One of the earlier languages had position dependent coding (code had to start on column 3 or something like that.  The name eludes me at the moment).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For that matter , why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that 's already there ? Are you insane ?
Have you ever written a parser ?
And being dependent on particular whitespace is really asking for trouble .
Now , are those tabs or spaces ?
How many spaces ?
One of the earlier languages had position dependent coding ( code had to start on column 3 or something like that .
The name eludes me at the moment ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For that matter, why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that's already there?Are you insane?
Have you ever written a parser?
And being dependent on particular whitespace is really asking for trouble.
Now, are those tabs or spaces?
How many spaces?
One of the earlier languages had position dependent coding (code had to start on column 3 or something like that.
The name eludes me at the moment).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057436</id>
	<title>Re:"Go" name already taken for programming languag</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257066480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With google stealing "chrome" and now "go" from others, and their retarded "closure" library, and other example, I have to wonder if google engineers have zero creativity themselves, or if they are just assholes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With google stealing " chrome " and now " go " from others , and their retarded " closure " library , and other example , I have to wonder if google engineers have zero creativity themselves , or if they are just assholes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With google stealing "chrome" and now "go" from others, and their retarded "closure" library, and other example, I have to wonder if google engineers have zero creativity themselves, or if they are just assholes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057018</id>
	<title>Holy Shitbags Binaries Are Static And *Huge*</title>
	<author>FrankDrebin</author>
	<datestamp>1257882360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><tt>
$ cat hello.go <br>
package main<br>
<br>
import "fmt"<br>
<br>
func main() {<br>
	fmt.Printf("hello, world\n")<br>
}<br>
</tt>

Size of resulting binary: 581054 bytes on x86 Linux.</htmltext>
<tokenext>$ cat hello.go package main import " fmt " func main ( ) { fmt.Printf ( " hello , world \ n " ) } Size of resulting binary : 581054 bytes on x86 Linux .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
$ cat hello.go 
package main

import "fmt"

func main() {
	fmt.Printf("hello, world\n")
}


Size of resulting binary: 581054 bytes on x86 Linux.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902</id>
	<title>Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>cgenman</author>
	<datestamp>1257881160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Despite the large amount of enthusiasm for language design, modern mainstream programming languages don't fall far from the C tree.</i></p><p>Perhaps, like Qwerty, our C-based languages have evolved to be "good enough" for programming needs for the foreseeable future.  Make objects, make functions, operate between the two.. sure DVORAK might provide 20\% faster typing if you work at it for 3 years, but that's not really enough to warrant the switch.  We're unlikely to see a jump again of the size from C to C++ before we hit a major structural change.  I had thought the web might be that structural change, but that was well absorbed by extending existing ideas.</p><p>Personally, I just want to see programming languages that are more programmer fault-tolerant.  I can type "pizza" into my phone and have Chuck-E-Cheese offer to bake one while I drive over, but if I accidentally type "plaeyrArray" instead of "playerArray," the whole world is clearly on fire and everyone is going to die.  Why can't compilers be more intelligent about the types of errors they encounter in routine usage?  For that matter, why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that's already there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Despite the large amount of enthusiasm for language design , modern mainstream programming languages do n't fall far from the C tree.Perhaps , like Qwerty , our C-based languages have evolved to be " good enough " for programming needs for the foreseeable future .
Make objects , make functions , operate between the two.. sure DVORAK might provide 20 \ % faster typing if you work at it for 3 years , but that 's not really enough to warrant the switch .
We 're unlikely to see a jump again of the size from C to C + + before we hit a major structural change .
I had thought the web might be that structural change , but that was well absorbed by extending existing ideas.Personally , I just want to see programming languages that are more programmer fault-tolerant .
I can type " pizza " into my phone and have Chuck-E-Cheese offer to bake one while I drive over , but if I accidentally type " plaeyrArray " instead of " playerArray , " the whole world is clearly on fire and everyone is going to die .
Why ca n't compilers be more intelligent about the types of errors they encounter in routine usage ?
For that matter , why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that 's already there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Despite the large amount of enthusiasm for language design, modern mainstream programming languages don't fall far from the C tree.Perhaps, like Qwerty, our C-based languages have evolved to be "good enough" for programming needs for the foreseeable future.
Make objects, make functions, operate between the two.. sure DVORAK might provide 20\% faster typing if you work at it for 3 years, but that's not really enough to warrant the switch.
We're unlikely to see a jump again of the size from C to C++ before we hit a major structural change.
I had thought the web might be that structural change, but that was well absorbed by extending existing ideas.Personally, I just want to see programming languages that are more programmer fault-tolerant.
I can type "pizza" into my phone and have Chuck-E-Cheese offer to bake one while I drive over, but if I accidentally type "plaeyrArray" instead of "playerArray," the whole world is clearly on fire and everyone is going to die.
Why can't compilers be more intelligent about the types of errors they encounter in routine usage?
For that matter, why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that's already there?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057294</id>
	<title>mod parent insightful</title>
	<author>heson</author>
	<datestamp>1257108000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Finally, a C++ user giving clues for a better C++, instead of the usual ones from non users.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , a C + + user giving clues for a better C + + , instead of the usual ones from non users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, a C++ user giving clues for a better C++, instead of the usual ones from non users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058802</id>
	<title>Making C++ bindings to a C library</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1257082620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you're still banging pointers around in C++ you're Doing It Wrong (except for very low-level code).</p></div><p>And because not all third-party libraries already have C++ bindings, you still need to write "very low-level code" quite often when you make your own.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you 're still banging pointers around in C + + you 're Doing It Wrong ( except for very low-level code ) .And because not all third-party libraries already have C + + bindings , you still need to write " very low-level code " quite often when you make your own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you're still banging pointers around in C++ you're Doing It Wrong (except for very low-level code).And because not all third-party libraries already have C++ bindings, you still need to write "very low-level code" quite often when you make your own.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057840</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056630</id>
	<title>Re:Build-in function library</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257878520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>PHP?  Where they dump all their million built-in functions into one namespace?  Lame.  In Perl you have a lot more control over what libraries you pull in and how you use them -- you have to search CPAN for packages sometimes, but then you have a choice on what packages to use.  And every Perl module I've pulled from CPAN has been well documented.</p><p>I can see wanting lots of libraries around in a default install back before the Internet was big.  These days that stuff should be separate and the language's core should be its core.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>PHP ?
Where they dump all their million built-in functions into one namespace ?
Lame. In Perl you have a lot more control over what libraries you pull in and how you use them -- you have to search CPAN for packages sometimes , but then you have a choice on what packages to use .
And every Perl module I 've pulled from CPAN has been well documented.I can see wanting lots of libraries around in a default install back before the Internet was big .
These days that stuff should be separate and the language 's core should be its core .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PHP?
Where they dump all their million built-in functions into one namespace?
Lame.  In Perl you have a lot more control over what libraries you pull in and how you use them -- you have to search CPAN for packages sometimes, but then you have a choice on what packages to use.
And every Perl module I've pulled from CPAN has been well documented.I can see wanting lots of libraries around in a default install back before the Internet was big.
These days that stuff should be separate and the language's core should be its core.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056494</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30070344</id>
	<title>Re:C++ incomplete. C# windoz. Java slow elephant.</title>
	<author>Spykk</author>
	<datestamp>1258018740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How can you speak highly of C and then write off C++ because it has no inherent string type? In C your only option is char arrays or rolling your own string concept. C++ has those options as well as a very nice string class included in the standard library.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How can you speak highly of C and then write off C + + because it has no inherent string type ?
In C your only option is char arrays or rolling your own string concept .
C + + has those options as well as a very nice string class included in the standard library .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How can you speak highly of C and then write off C++ because it has no inherent string type?
In C your only option is char arrays or rolling your own string concept.
C++ has those options as well as a very nice string class included in the standard library.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30066262</id>
	<title>Re:Build-in function library</title>
	<author>kestasjk</author>
	<datestamp>1257072900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Zend framework, pear, namespaces. PHP has grown as the net has grown.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Zend framework , pear , namespaces .
PHP has grown as the net has grown .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zend framework, pear, namespaces.
PHP has grown as the net has grown.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30083876</id>
	<title>Re:C++ incomplete. C# windoz. Java slow elephant.</title>
	<author>mahadiga</author>
	<datestamp>1258051980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Clearly web centric</p></div></blockquote><p>
But isn't PHP &amp; Python <i>web centric</i>?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly web centric But is n't PHP &amp; Python web centric ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly web centric
But isn't PHP &amp; Python web centric?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064932</id>
	<title>Re:Attempting to install it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257066600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lol.  I almost spewed my water on my keyboard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lol .
I almost spewed my water on my keyboard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lol.
I almost spewed my water on my keyboard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058566</id>
	<title>Re:"Systems" language?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257080280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You cannot shoehorn a GC into C++. Explicit memory management is so tightly coupled to C++ that most attempts at introducing something automatic automatically impose significant restrictions on what you can do. This is OK for specific scenarios, not OK for a core language component.</p><p>Also, generic programming and template metaprogramming are one distinct advantages of C++ over other languages. The ability to metaprogram and use structural typing there is priceless, and some forms of metaprogramming are quite common in languages like Javascript, Lua, Python, Ruby, Lisp, Haskell. Without such features, C++ becomes little more than a Java without GC. No wonder the C++ committee put their focus on them.</p><p>I do agree however that a replacement is needed. Compile times are awful, memory usage while compiling goes through the roof, compiling errors fill several pages, the syntax is an abomination (especially in metaprograms), and it does not even have an optional GC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can not shoehorn a GC into C + + .
Explicit memory management is so tightly coupled to C + + that most attempts at introducing something automatic automatically impose significant restrictions on what you can do .
This is OK for specific scenarios , not OK for a core language component.Also , generic programming and template metaprogramming are one distinct advantages of C + + over other languages .
The ability to metaprogram and use structural typing there is priceless , and some forms of metaprogramming are quite common in languages like Javascript , Lua , Python , Ruby , Lisp , Haskell .
Without such features , C + + becomes little more than a Java without GC .
No wonder the C + + committee put their focus on them.I do agree however that a replacement is needed .
Compile times are awful , memory usage while compiling goes through the roof , compiling errors fill several pages , the syntax is an abomination ( especially in metaprograms ) , and it does not even have an optional GC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You cannot shoehorn a GC into C++.
Explicit memory management is so tightly coupled to C++ that most attempts at introducing something automatic automatically impose significant restrictions on what you can do.
This is OK for specific scenarios, not OK for a core language component.Also, generic programming and template metaprogramming are one distinct advantages of C++ over other languages.
The ability to metaprogram and use structural typing there is priceless, and some forms of metaprogramming are quite common in languages like Javascript, Lua, Python, Ruby, Lisp, Haskell.
Without such features, C++ becomes little more than a Java without GC.
No wonder the C++ committee put their focus on them.I do agree however that a replacement is needed.
Compile times are awful, memory usage while compiling goes through the roof, compiling errors fill several pages, the syntax is an abomination (especially in metaprograms), and it does not even have an optional GC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30072190</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258039500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This just leaves me wondering: why do we need yet another programming language that looks sort of like C? Ugh. We have a glut of different languages somewhat similar.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This just leaves me wondering : why do we need yet another programming language that looks sort of like C ?
Ugh. We have a glut of different languages somewhat similar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This just leaves me wondering: why do we need yet another programming language that looks sort of like C?
Ugh. We have a glut of different languages somewhat similar.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059554</id>
	<title>ChaiScript</title>
	<author>lefticus</author>
	<datestamp>1257088080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I may as well take the opportunity to mention a FOSS programming language I have been working on that is designed to enable the merging of the speed of C++ with the flexibility of a scripting language. It is a scripting language designed for embedding in your C++ application, and it makes it trivial to your C++ classes/objects/functions to the scripting language. It's called <a href="http://www.chaiscript.com/" title="chaiscript.com" rel="nofollow">ChaiScript</a> [chaiscript.com], we've been working on it for about 6 months now and have made several releases.</p><p>ChaiScript works with your existing C++ code and doesn't require you to rewrite your application, like moving to a whole other language would.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I may as well take the opportunity to mention a FOSS programming language I have been working on that is designed to enable the merging of the speed of C + + with the flexibility of a scripting language .
It is a scripting language designed for embedding in your C + + application , and it makes it trivial to your C + + classes/objects/functions to the scripting language .
It 's called ChaiScript [ chaiscript.com ] , we 've been working on it for about 6 months now and have made several releases.ChaiScript works with your existing C + + code and does n't require you to rewrite your application , like moving to a whole other language would .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I may as well take the opportunity to mention a FOSS programming language I have been working on that is designed to enable the merging of the speed of C++ with the flexibility of a scripting language.
It is a scripting language designed for embedding in your C++ application, and it makes it trivial to your C++ classes/objects/functions to the scripting language.
It's called ChaiScript [chaiscript.com], we've been working on it for about 6 months now and have made several releases.ChaiScript works with your existing C++ code and doesn't require you to rewrite your application, like moving to a whole other language would.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057164</id>
	<title>Re:fmt</title>
	<author>Scott Kevill</author>
	<datestamp>1257106500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>+1 nfmtv</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>+ 1 nfmtv</tokentext>
<sentencetext>+1 nfmtv</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057580</id>
	<title>Re:Fixes problems misguided people think C++ has.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257068280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No but C can.</p><p>C++ is a bastardized monstrosity that will take years for new features to be available in all compilers. Adding features to its already complex featureset is a losing proposition.</p><p>The world is still missing a simple easy to use/read, fast, native and cross platform programming language, I'm not saying this is it (although looks like a decent first attempt) but it has a lot more potential than forking with C++ to get there.</p><p>As long as its rich enough to be able to write 95\% of the programs out there as well as being able to call into C libs should you need to, then I'd be happy to ignore C++ completely.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No but C can.C + + is a bastardized monstrosity that will take years for new features to be available in all compilers .
Adding features to its already complex featureset is a losing proposition.The world is still missing a simple easy to use/read , fast , native and cross platform programming language , I 'm not saying this is it ( although looks like a decent first attempt ) but it has a lot more potential than forking with C + + to get there.As long as its rich enough to be able to write 95 \ % of the programs out there as well as being able to call into C libs should you need to , then I 'd be happy to ignore C + + completely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No but C can.C++ is a bastardized monstrosity that will take years for new features to be available in all compilers.
Adding features to its already complex featureset is a losing proposition.The world is still missing a simple easy to use/read, fast, native and cross platform programming language, I'm not saying this is it (although looks like a decent first attempt) but it has a lot more potential than forking with C++ to get there.As long as its rich enough to be able to write 95\% of the programs out there as well as being able to call into C libs should you need to, then I'd be happy to ignore C++ completely.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30068846</id>
	<title>Re:Fixes problems misguided people think C++ has.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257090720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>C++ is a static, explicit language. Go is not.</p></div><p>Just to be clear, Go is statically typed.  It just happens to use inferred types a lot in the syntax (though the use of inferred types is up to the programmer -- you can choose to be explicit in your variable types).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>C + + is a static , explicit language .
Go is not.Just to be clear , Go is statically typed .
It just happens to use inferred types a lot in the syntax ( though the use of inferred types is up to the programmer -- you can choose to be explicit in your variable types ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C++ is a static, explicit language.
Go is not.Just to be clear, Go is statically typed.
It just happens to use inferred types a lot in the syntax (though the use of inferred types is up to the programmer -- you can choose to be explicit in your variable types).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30069426</id>
	<title>Re:"Go" name already taken for programming languag</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257097560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Two "Go"s considered harmful.</p></div><p>Thank you, sir.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Two " Go " s considered harmful.Thank you , sir .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Two "Go"s considered harmful.Thank you, sir.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064222</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257106860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cobol, young grasshopper</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cobol , young grasshopper</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cobol, young grasshopper</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30065094</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257067380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FORTRAN has to start on column 7 if that's what you mean.  (Also columns 1-5 are for line numbering used with GOTO, column 6 is for the line continuation marker, and columns 73-80 were used to label your punch cards so if you dropped them it wasn't the end of the world -- columns 85+ didn't exist since the punch card is only so large).</p><p>One of the biggest problems I've encountered with this is that if you use tabs, then it depends on your compiler to decide how many columns tab is. Some compilers will treat it as 6 at the start of the line then 7 elsewhere, then you load it in another compiler which interprets them all as 8 and suddenly you need to rewrite your whitespace -- not fun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FORTRAN has to start on column 7 if that 's what you mean .
( Also columns 1-5 are for line numbering used with GOTO , column 6 is for the line continuation marker , and columns 73-80 were used to label your punch cards so if you dropped them it was n't the end of the world -- columns 85 + did n't exist since the punch card is only so large ) .One of the biggest problems I 've encountered with this is that if you use tabs , then it depends on your compiler to decide how many columns tab is .
Some compilers will treat it as 6 at the start of the line then 7 elsewhere , then you load it in another compiler which interprets them all as 8 and suddenly you need to rewrite your whitespace -- not fun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FORTRAN has to start on column 7 if that's what you mean.
(Also columns 1-5 are for line numbering used with GOTO, column 6 is for the line continuation marker, and columns 73-80 were used to label your punch cards so if you dropped them it wasn't the end of the world -- columns 85+ didn't exist since the punch card is only so large).One of the biggest problems I've encountered with this is that if you use tabs, then it depends on your compiler to decide how many columns tab is.
Some compilers will treat it as 6 at the start of the line then 7 elsewhere, then you load it in another compiler which interprets them all as 8 and suddenly you need to rewrite your whitespace -- not fun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30070514</id>
	<title>Re:Named after the most difficult-to-master game e</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258021440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just be happy it's not battletoads</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just be happy it 's not battletoads</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just be happy it's not battletoads</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057050</id>
	<title>Re:"Systems" language?</title>
	<author>DerekLyons</author>
	<datestamp>1257882600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There is too much competition from other fresh and well regarded "new" languages for yet another new entrant to gain much headway without something really novel to attract attention.</p></div></blockquote><p>Open Source.<br>Google branded.<br>
&nbsp; <br>It doesn't need <i>anything</i> novel when it hits two of the top orgasm buttons among many geeks, techies, and wanna bees.  All that's missing for a grand slam is a connection to Apple.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is too much competition from other fresh and well regarded " new " languages for yet another new entrant to gain much headway without something really novel to attract attention.Open Source.Google branded .
  It does n't need anything novel when it hits two of the top orgasm buttons among many geeks , techies , and wan na bees .
All that 's missing for a grand slam is a connection to Apple .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is too much competition from other fresh and well regarded "new" languages for yet another new entrant to gain much headway without something really novel to attract attention.Open Source.Google branded.
  It doesn't need anything novel when it hits two of the top orgasm buttons among many geeks, techies, and wanna bees.
All that's missing for a grand slam is a connection to Apple.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056700</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059294</id>
	<title>Re:Holy Shitbags Binaries Are Static And *Huge*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257086640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Doesn't beat C @ Size:8294 Bytes</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't beat C @ Size : 8294 Bytes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't beat C @ Size:8294 Bytes</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058296</id>
	<title>Re:"Systems" language?</title>
	<author>Vintermann</author>
	<datestamp>1257076920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can get pointer arithmetic in Ada, as long as you sign the proper disclaimer of warranty forms and send them to the DOD in triplicate.</p><p>Seriously, you can get pretty much anything in Ada, it's just that you need to be very, very verbose about the things you really shouldn't be asking for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can get pointer arithmetic in Ada , as long as you sign the proper disclaimer of warranty forms and send them to the DOD in triplicate.Seriously , you can get pretty much anything in Ada , it 's just that you need to be very , very verbose about the things you really should n't be asking for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can get pointer arithmetic in Ada, as long as you sign the proper disclaimer of warranty forms and send them to the DOD in triplicate.Seriously, you can get pretty much anything in Ada, it's just that you need to be very, very verbose about the things you really shouldn't be asking for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30062864</id>
	<title>So depressing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257102120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google, an enclave of some of the best and brightest in software engineering, and this is what they come up with?<br>I have been getting paid to program computers for close to 40 years now, and during that time the BIG changes in programming have been losing Hollerith cards and editing that could edit any character in a file without re-opening the file. (TECO {*shudder*}) or throwing away the card!<br>Pretty sad huh?</p><p>The languages have all remained forks of Algol.  This is the best we can do?  Arguing about white space and libraries and late binding vs early binding, etc.  Programs that are written in flat ASCII files, it all makes me sick.<br>The computing power has gone through the roof with CPUs and GPUs that rival supercomputers and we are still using makefiles; static analyzers and debuggers.  And arguing about the color of the font, or spacing used.<br>Next time you think you are cutting edge, just realize that you are using tools that where designed 50 years ago, with almost no change!<br>And when we designed those tools, they where so they could run on those old pathetic machines that consisted of rooms of equipment with cooling towers (the first computer I used had 48K of core memory, and export was controlled by the DOD), they where not designed to be human friendly.<br>The programming paradigm should consists of the programmer expressing the unambiguous goals of the program, and setting a list of requirements, such as target CPUs, inputs and outputs, etc. and then the program is created to satisfy those programmer stats.<br>Even better have the intended hardware target described in another unambiguous "language" that is passed into this "compile" as well, that way the tool knows if there even is cache available.<br>I don't care how many cycles it takes to achieve those goals at "compile time", we have volatile and non-volatile memory that is measured in gigabytes, not k.  With CPUs of amazing throughput.  I want the tools to figure out if this fetch is from L1 or L2 cache, not me!<br>And if my programming requirements stated that speed was important, then restructure the design of the program to use L1.  This will take at most seconds on a computer not days of my life.  I don't even want to know what it did to achieve my requirements, unless I specifically go looking for those answers.  It is just that simple.</p><p>Will we ever get away from these barbaric hardware defined and confined programming tools?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google , an enclave of some of the best and brightest in software engineering , and this is what they come up with ? I have been getting paid to program computers for close to 40 years now , and during that time the BIG changes in programming have been losing Hollerith cards and editing that could edit any character in a file without re-opening the file .
( TECO { * shudder * } ) or throwing away the card ! Pretty sad huh ? The languages have all remained forks of Algol .
This is the best we can do ?
Arguing about white space and libraries and late binding vs early binding , etc .
Programs that are written in flat ASCII files , it all makes me sick.The computing power has gone through the roof with CPUs and GPUs that rival supercomputers and we are still using makefiles ; static analyzers and debuggers .
And arguing about the color of the font , or spacing used.Next time you think you are cutting edge , just realize that you are using tools that where designed 50 years ago , with almost no change ! And when we designed those tools , they where so they could run on those old pathetic machines that consisted of rooms of equipment with cooling towers ( the first computer I used had 48K of core memory , and export was controlled by the DOD ) , they where not designed to be human friendly.The programming paradigm should consists of the programmer expressing the unambiguous goals of the program , and setting a list of requirements , such as target CPUs , inputs and outputs , etc .
and then the program is created to satisfy those programmer stats.Even better have the intended hardware target described in another unambiguous " language " that is passed into this " compile " as well , that way the tool knows if there even is cache available.I do n't care how many cycles it takes to achieve those goals at " compile time " , we have volatile and non-volatile memory that is measured in gigabytes , not k. With CPUs of amazing throughput .
I want the tools to figure out if this fetch is from L1 or L2 cache , not me ! And if my programming requirements stated that speed was important , then restructure the design of the program to use L1 .
This will take at most seconds on a computer not days of my life .
I do n't even want to know what it did to achieve my requirements , unless I specifically go looking for those answers .
It is just that simple.Will we ever get away from these barbaric hardware defined and confined programming tools ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google, an enclave of some of the best and brightest in software engineering, and this is what they come up with?I have been getting paid to program computers for close to 40 years now, and during that time the BIG changes in programming have been losing Hollerith cards and editing that could edit any character in a file without re-opening the file.
(TECO {*shudder*}) or throwing away the card!Pretty sad huh?The languages have all remained forks of Algol.
This is the best we can do?
Arguing about white space and libraries and late binding vs early binding, etc.
Programs that are written in flat ASCII files, it all makes me sick.The computing power has gone through the roof with CPUs and GPUs that rival supercomputers and we are still using makefiles; static analyzers and debuggers.
And arguing about the color of the font, or spacing used.Next time you think you are cutting edge, just realize that you are using tools that where designed 50 years ago, with almost no change!And when we designed those tools, they where so they could run on those old pathetic machines that consisted of rooms of equipment with cooling towers (the first computer I used had 48K of core memory, and export was controlled by the DOD), they where not designed to be human friendly.The programming paradigm should consists of the programmer expressing the unambiguous goals of the program, and setting a list of requirements, such as target CPUs, inputs and outputs, etc.
and then the program is created to satisfy those programmer stats.Even better have the intended hardware target described in another unambiguous "language" that is passed into this "compile" as well, that way the tool knows if there even is cache available.I don't care how many cycles it takes to achieve those goals at "compile time", we have volatile and non-volatile memory that is measured in gigabytes, not k.  With CPUs of amazing throughput.
I want the tools to figure out if this fetch is from L1 or L2 cache, not me!And if my programming requirements stated that speed was important, then restructure the design of the program to use L1.
This will take at most seconds on a computer not days of my life.
I don't even want to know what it did to achieve my requirements, unless I specifically go looking for those answers.
It is just that simple.Will we ever get away from these barbaric hardware defined and confined programming tools?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059202</id>
	<title>Re:Fixes problems misguided people think C++ has.</title>
	<author>smcdow</author>
	<datestamp>1257085980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... And, can we PLEASE have a thread-safe STL?  Please, please, please?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... And , can we PLEASE have a thread-safe STL ?
Please , please , please ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... And, can we PLEASE have a thread-safe STL?
Please, please, please?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060916</id>
	<title>Re:Google search "Go"</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1257093960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a practical issue, it has nothing to do with marketing.</p><p>Perl, Java, PHP, Lua are good names because they're easy to Google. (Java shares a name with something pre-existing, but is vastly more popular than it on the web, so it's not a big deal.) Python, Ruby, Obj-C not quite as much. C, C++, C#? Awful. Go unfortunately falls into the "awful" category here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a practical issue , it has nothing to do with marketing.Perl , Java , PHP , Lua are good names because they 're easy to Google .
( Java shares a name with something pre-existing , but is vastly more popular than it on the web , so it 's not a big deal .
) Python , Ruby , Obj-C not quite as much .
C , C + + , C # ?
Awful. Go unfortunately falls into the " awful " category here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a practical issue, it has nothing to do with marketing.Perl, Java, PHP, Lua are good names because they're easy to Google.
(Java shares a name with something pre-existing, but is vastly more popular than it on the web, so it's not a big deal.
) Python, Ruby, Obj-C not quite as much.
C, C++, C#?
Awful. Go unfortunately falls into the "awful" category here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056910</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30066184</id>
	<title>Re:Named after the most difficult-to-master game e</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257072660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I will probably mature around the time Goooooo comes out</p></div><p>... that's what she said.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I will probably mature around the time Goooooo comes out... that 's what she said .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I will probably mature around the time Goooooo comes out... that's what she said.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058534</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061650</id>
	<title>Re:gccgo? Why not LLVM?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257096840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The gccgo port was written by Ian Taylor, a long time GCC contributor, who does not know LLVM.  It's interesting to note that LLVM is "too slow" compared to the plan 9 compiler (not compared to GCC *g*), but the plan9 compiler generates atrocious code.</p><p>LLVM is actually quite speedy at -O0 mode, which is why it is used for JITs, perhaps the authors didn't try the right flags or something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The gccgo port was written by Ian Taylor , a long time GCC contributor , who does not know LLVM .
It 's interesting to note that LLVM is " too slow " compared to the plan 9 compiler ( not compared to GCC * g * ) , but the plan9 compiler generates atrocious code.LLVM is actually quite speedy at -O0 mode , which is why it is used for JITs , perhaps the authors did n't try the right flags or something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The gccgo port was written by Ian Taylor, a long time GCC contributor, who does not know LLVM.
It's interesting to note that LLVM is "too slow" compared to the plan 9 compiler (not compared to GCC *g*), but the plan9 compiler generates atrocious code.LLVM is actually quite speedy at -O0 mode, which is why it is used for JITs, perhaps the authors didn't try the right flags or something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064788</id>
	<title>Content of golang.org for a visitor from Iran</title>
	<author>mebrahim</author>
	<datestamp>1257109080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google Error<p>
    Forbidden</p><p>
    Your client does not have permission to get URL / from this server. (Client IP address: ***.***.***.***)</p><p>
    You are accessing this page from a forbidden country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google Error Forbidden Your client does not have permission to get URL / from this server .
( Client IP address : * * * . * * * . * * * .
* * * ) You are accessing this page from a forbidden country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google Error
    Forbidden
    Your client does not have permission to get URL / from this server.
(Client IP address: ***.***.***.
***)
    You are accessing this page from a forbidden country.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057042</id>
	<title>"Go" name already taken for programming languages</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257882540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This fellow has been working on his own programming language, also called "Go", for a decade. Even released a book about it. He filed an issue in the tracker for the Google language: <a href="http://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=9" title="google.com">http://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=9</a> [google.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>This fellow has been working on his own programming language , also called " Go " , for a decade .
Even released a book about it .
He filed an issue in the tracker for the Google language : http : //code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail ? id = 9 [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This fellow has been working on his own programming language, also called "Go", for a decade.
Even released a book about it.
He filed an issue in the tracker for the Google language: http://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=9 [google.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057392</id>
	<title>Re:Attempting to install it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257109140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not sure if this is *whoosh* worthy for all the people who modified it insightful, but aren't those protected files?  It's a bit odd that they don't appear to exist, but maybe it's just trying to open them for reading and failing, which with something like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/passwd isn't that surprising.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure if this is * whoosh * worthy for all the people who modified it insightful , but are n't those protected files ?
It 's a bit odd that they do n't appear to exist , but maybe it 's just trying to open them for reading and failing , which with something like /etc/passwd is n't that surprising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure if this is *whoosh* worthy for all the people who modified it insightful, but aren't those protected files?
It's a bit odd that they don't appear to exist, but maybe it's just trying to open them for reading and failing, which with something like /etc/passwd isn't that surprising.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056532</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30082184</id>
	<title>Nice name...</title>
	<author>DaVince21</author>
	<datestamp>1258034880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What's Google implying? That I Go ogle people?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's Google implying ?
That I Go ogle people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's Google implying?
That I Go ogle people?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058846</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>rfreedman</author>
	<datestamp>1257082920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For that matter, why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that's already there?</p></div><p>Like in Python?</p><p>The reason that I still like my curly-braces is that I don't want the meaning of my code to change just because somebody (me?) changed the whitespace.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For that matter , why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that 's already there ? Like in Python ? The reason that I still like my curly-braces is that I do n't want the meaning of my code to change just because somebody ( me ?
) changed the whitespace .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For that matter, why are we still defining code chunks via brackets instead of the indentation that's already there?Like in Python?The reason that I still like my curly-braces is that I don't want the meaning of my code to change just because somebody (me?
) changed the whitespace.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058642</id>
	<title>Re:"Go" name already taken for programming languag</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257081060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>heya,.

Actually, if you look at the issues, you'll see a number of people make the very valid point (e.g. comment 66, <a href="http://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=9#c66" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=9#c66</a> [google.com]), that the languages are "go", and "Go!".

And a lot of languages already differ by one character - C, C++. and C#. Or A+ and A++. Or Alef and ALF. Or GM and GML? Or how about Modula-2, Modula-2+ and Modula3?

Look it happens, you don't see anybody flaming each other on those languages, getting them to change. I don't see K&amp;R flaming Microsoft about C#.

Cheers,
Victor</htmltext>
<tokenext>heya, .
Actually , if you look at the issues , you 'll see a number of people make the very valid point ( e.g .
comment 66 , http : //code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail ? id = 9 # c66 [ google.com ] ) , that the languages are " go " , and " Go ! " .
And a lot of languages already differ by one character - C , C + + .
and C # .
Or A + and A + + .
Or Alef and ALF .
Or GM and GML ?
Or how about Modula-2 , Modula-2 + and Modula3 ?
Look it happens , you do n't see anybody flaming each other on those languages , getting them to change .
I do n't see K&amp;R flaming Microsoft about C # .
Cheers , Victor</tokentext>
<sentencetext>heya,.
Actually, if you look at the issues, you'll see a number of people make the very valid point (e.g.
comment 66, http://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=9#c66 [google.com]), that the languages are "go", and "Go!".
And a lot of languages already differ by one character - C, C++.
and C#.
Or A+ and A++.
Or Alef and ALF.
Or GM and GML?
Or how about Modula-2, Modula-2+ and Modula3?
Look it happens, you don't see anybody flaming each other on those languages, getting them to change.
I don't see K&amp;R flaming Microsoft about C#.
Cheers,
Victor</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057042</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059374</id>
	<title>Great, yet another C/Python clone...</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1257087240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Innovation? What's that?<br>Haskell? Never heard of it.<br>Python? No, we can't just make an existing language faster.<br>C? Yes we love the horribly crappy syntax of C, and will clone it.</p><p>Yay! Yet another pointless reason for yet another pointless language.</p><p>Sorry, but Haskell completely and utterly spoiled me for all other programming languages...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Innovation ?
What 's that ? Haskell ?
Never heard of it.Python ?
No , we ca n't just make an existing language faster.C ?
Yes we love the horribly crappy syntax of C , and will clone it.Yay !
Yet another pointless reason for yet another pointless language.Sorry , but Haskell completely and utterly spoiled me for all other programming languages... : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Innovation?
What's that?Haskell?
Never heard of it.Python?
No, we can't just make an existing language faster.C?
Yes we love the horribly crappy syntax of C, and will clone it.Yay!
Yet another pointless reason for yet another pointless language.Sorry, but Haskell completely and utterly spoiled me for all other programming languages... :)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30068674</id>
	<title>Re:Lightweight languages do not remain lightweight</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1257089100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If this language becomes as popular as Perl, then 120,000 lines will soon become 1,200,000 lines. That is exactly what happened to the Perl interpreter and compiler.</i></p><p>I doubt it.  The Perl-community is enamored with features and bloat.  The people behind Go are hostile to it.</p><p>And, as I recall, never in their history were Perl or Java quick to compile.</p><p><i>Also, just like Java, the new Go language (due to the immense respect for Google's scientific prowess) will likely receive accolades</i></p><p>Who cares?  The world is full of idiots.  Hey, you just made an idiotic argument yourself, to paraphrase "Because Java is bad and Java received accolades, Go will be bad if it receives accolades too."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If this language becomes as popular as Perl , then 120,000 lines will soon become 1,200,000 lines .
That is exactly what happened to the Perl interpreter and compiler.I doubt it .
The Perl-community is enamored with features and bloat .
The people behind Go are hostile to it.And , as I recall , never in their history were Perl or Java quick to compile.Also , just like Java , the new Go language ( due to the immense respect for Google 's scientific prowess ) will likely receive accoladesWho cares ?
The world is full of idiots .
Hey , you just made an idiotic argument yourself , to paraphrase " Because Java is bad and Java received accolades , Go will be bad if it receives accolades too .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If this language becomes as popular as Perl, then 120,000 lines will soon become 1,200,000 lines.
That is exactly what happened to the Perl interpreter and compiler.I doubt it.
The Perl-community is enamored with features and bloat.
The people behind Go are hostile to it.And, as I recall, never in their history were Perl or Java quick to compile.Also, just like Java, the new Go language (due to the immense respect for Google's scientific prowess) will likely receive accoladesWho cares?
The world is full of idiots.
Hey, you just made an idiotic argument yourself, to paraphrase "Because Java is bad and Java received accolades, Go will be bad if it receives accolades too.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057048</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056910</id>
	<title>Re:Google search "Go"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257881160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>the go authors have a decades-old practice of deliberately choosing annoying names "in the Bell Labs tradition of selecting names that make marketeers wince."<br>
<br>
<a href="http://plan9.bell-labs.com/wiki/plan9/FAQ/index.html" title="bell-labs.com">http://plan9.bell-labs.com/wiki/plan9/FAQ/index.html</a> [bell-labs.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>the go authors have a decades-old practice of deliberately choosing annoying names " in the Bell Labs tradition of selecting names that make marketeers wince .
" http : //plan9.bell-labs.com/wiki/plan9/FAQ/index.html [ bell-labs.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the go authors have a decades-old practice of deliberately choosing annoying names "in the Bell Labs tradition of selecting names that make marketeers wince.
"

http://plan9.bell-labs.com/wiki/plan9/FAQ/index.html [bell-labs.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057854</id>
	<title>Re:Holy Shitbags Binaries Are Static And *Huge*</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257072000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did you check if the compiler inserts debug code by default into the executable?<br>Anyway, being this one a new language I guess they still have to do some work on code optimization, let's hope one year from now the binaries get smaller.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you check if the compiler inserts debug code by default into the executable ? Anyway , being this one a new language I guess they still have to do some work on code optimization , let 's hope one year from now the binaries get smaller .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you check if the compiler inserts debug code by default into the executable?Anyway, being this one a new language I guess they still have to do some work on code optimization, let's hope one year from now the binaries get smaller.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057002</id>
	<title>Re:"Systems" language?</title>
	<author>mister\_dave</author>
	<datestamp>1257882180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it backed by Google? I thought it was an engineer's "20\%" project.</p><p>Objective C, which has <a href="http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/10#blocks" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">recently introduced</a> [arstechnica.com] many of the features you admire in Go, <i>is</i> backed by Apple, but has never taken off outside the MacVerse.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it backed by Google ?
I thought it was an engineer 's " 20 \ % " project.Objective C , which has recently introduced [ arstechnica.com ] many of the features you admire in Go , is backed by Apple , but has never taken off outside the MacVerse .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it backed by Google?
I thought it was an engineer's "20\%" project.Objective C, which has recently introduced [arstechnica.com] many of the features you admire in Go, is backed by Apple, but has never taken off outside the MacVerse.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056918</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30062252</id>
	<title>Re:"Systems" language?</title>
	<author>Animats</author>
	<datestamp>1257099300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
<i>You cannot shoehorn a GC into C++.</i>
</p><p>
Actually, you can.  See Microsoft Managed C++. But it's not happy.  Destructors and garbage collection do not play well together.  Calling destructors from the garbage collector introduces a kind of concurrency which leads to difficulties if the destructor does something non-trivial, like close a window or a file.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can not shoehorn a GC into C + + .
Actually , you can .
See Microsoft Managed C + + .
But it 's not happy .
Destructors and garbage collection do not play well together .
Calling destructors from the garbage collector introduces a kind of concurrency which leads to difficulties if the destructor does something non-trivial , like close a window or a file .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
You cannot shoehorn a GC into C++.
Actually, you can.
See Microsoft Managed C++.
But it's not happy.
Destructors and garbage collection do not play well together.
Calling destructors from the garbage collector introduces a kind of concurrency which leads to difficulties if the destructor does something non-trivial, like close a window or a file.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058566</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058918</id>
	<title>Re:C++ incomplete. C# windoz. Java slow elephant.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257083460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Watch C#, it'll be adding some more multithreaded things in the 4.0 release</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Watch C # , it 'll be adding some more multithreaded things in the 4.0 release</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Watch C#, it'll be adding some more multithreaded things in the 4.0 release</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056796</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064808</id>
	<title>Re:Google search "Go"</title>
	<author>ZuluZero</author>
	<datestamp>1257109140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I \_swear\_ that I used a very simple programming language in the late '80s called "GO"....but when I Google, all I get is \_Google\_
At least wikipedia gives you a bit more info. It was on some proprietary dumb network terminal system that came out of UoWaterloo, I think. Can't really remember grade 11, sigh.

All the language seemed to be targeted for was drawing lines on the screen. Anyone?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I \ _swear \ _ that I used a very simple programming language in the late '80s called " GO " ....but when I Google , all I get is \ _Google \ _ At least wikipedia gives you a bit more info .
It was on some proprietary dumb network terminal system that came out of UoWaterloo , I think .
Ca n't really remember grade 11 , sigh .
All the language seemed to be targeted for was drawing lines on the screen .
Anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I \_swear\_ that I used a very simple programming language in the late '80s called "GO"....but when I Google, all I get is \_Google\_
At least wikipedia gives you a bit more info.
It was on some proprietary dumb network terminal system that came out of UoWaterloo, I think.
Can't really remember grade 11, sigh.
All the language seemed to be targeted for was drawing lines on the screen.
Anyone?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056616</id>
	<title>Re:Google search "Go"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257878400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps we should abbreviate the "Go Programming Language" to "GPL"? That way, we can google for "GPL" and find Go code all over the place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps we should abbreviate the " Go Programming Language " to " GPL " ?
That way , we can google for " GPL " and find Go code all over the place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps we should abbreviate the "Go Programming Language" to "GPL"?
That way, we can google for "GPL" and find Go code all over the place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30067960</id>
	<title>Re:C++ incomplete. C# windoz. Java slow elephant.</title>
	<author>HiThere</author>
	<datestamp>1257082740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The ISO may only have defined a C++ standard in 1998, but there were many users a decade earlier.  The first C++ compiler I used was cfront, and it compiled C++ to C.  I found it more of an improvement over C than I find the current C++ compilers.  (Due to work considerations I spent a decade with MSAccess &amp; it's version of VisualBasic...which wasn't even standard MSVisualBasic.  Yuck!!!)  When I came back to C it was via Ruby &amp; Python.  C++ was virtually unintelligible.  (Not really, but I *REALLY* despise templates!  Give me Ada generics any time as an alternative.  If Ada had decent string handling, I'd never have looked at C again.)</p><p>To me Google go looks like an interesting language.  I'm not clear how one should convert uint64's into a ubyte[], but outside of that I think I'm sold...at least enough to give it a test.  It's lacking in libraries at the moment, but if it becomes at all popular that should diminish quickly.</p><p>FWIW, I've currently been using D as the best language for performance, etc., but D doesn't handle multiple-processors gracefully.  They've got a library, and they're planning to improve it, but it's an "add-on", not a built-in.  To me this is an important feature, and I don't currently know any language that handles it well.  (Yeah, I've looked at Erlang.  I've also timed simple programs.  I think I'd do better with Python.  In Erlang if you can directly apply the language built-ins, you get good performance.  Otherwise not.  And the built-in database doesn't appear to do what I want.  And other parts of the program chain were just too slow.)</p><p>Of course, this is all based on their assertion that Google go really *IS* in the same speed ball-park as C.  D is, so it's not impossible.  But many languages that make that claim aren't.  (I guess it depends on what you're doing.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The ISO may only have defined a C + + standard in 1998 , but there were many users a decade earlier .
The first C + + compiler I used was cfront , and it compiled C + + to C. I found it more of an improvement over C than I find the current C + + compilers .
( Due to work considerations I spent a decade with MSAccess &amp; it 's version of VisualBasic...which was n't even standard MSVisualBasic .
Yuck ! ! ! ) When I came back to C it was via Ruby &amp; Python .
C + + was virtually unintelligible .
( Not really , but I * REALLY * despise templates !
Give me Ada generics any time as an alternative .
If Ada had decent string handling , I 'd never have looked at C again .
) To me Google go looks like an interesting language .
I 'm not clear how one should convert uint64 's into a ubyte [ ] , but outside of that I think I 'm sold...at least enough to give it a test .
It 's lacking in libraries at the moment , but if it becomes at all popular that should diminish quickly.FWIW , I 've currently been using D as the best language for performance , etc. , but D does n't handle multiple-processors gracefully .
They 've got a library , and they 're planning to improve it , but it 's an " add-on " , not a built-in .
To me this is an important feature , and I do n't currently know any language that handles it well .
( Yeah , I 've looked at Erlang .
I 've also timed simple programs .
I think I 'd do better with Python .
In Erlang if you can directly apply the language built-ins , you get good performance .
Otherwise not .
And the built-in database does n't appear to do what I want .
And other parts of the program chain were just too slow .
) Of course , this is all based on their assertion that Google go really * IS * in the same speed ball-park as C. D is , so it 's not impossible .
But many languages that make that claim are n't .
( I guess it depends on what you 're doing .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The ISO may only have defined a C++ standard in 1998, but there were many users a decade earlier.
The first C++ compiler I used was cfront, and it compiled C++ to C.  I found it more of an improvement over C than I find the current C++ compilers.
(Due to work considerations I spent a decade with MSAccess &amp; it's version of VisualBasic...which wasn't even standard MSVisualBasic.
Yuck!!!)  When I came back to C it was via Ruby &amp; Python.
C++ was virtually unintelligible.
(Not really, but I *REALLY* despise templates!
Give me Ada generics any time as an alternative.
If Ada had decent string handling, I'd never have looked at C again.
)To me Google go looks like an interesting language.
I'm not clear how one should convert uint64's into a ubyte[], but outside of that I think I'm sold...at least enough to give it a test.
It's lacking in libraries at the moment, but if it becomes at all popular that should diminish quickly.FWIW, I've currently been using D as the best language for performance, etc., but D doesn't handle multiple-processors gracefully.
They've got a library, and they're planning to improve it, but it's an "add-on", not a built-in.
To me this is an important feature, and I don't currently know any language that handles it well.
(Yeah, I've looked at Erlang.
I've also timed simple programs.
I think I'd do better with Python.
In Erlang if you can directly apply the language built-ins, you get good performance.
Otherwise not.
And the built-in database doesn't appear to do what I want.
And other parts of the program chain were just too slow.
)Of course, this is all based on their assertion that Google go really *IS* in the same speed ball-park as C.  D is, so it's not impossible.
But many languages that make that claim aren't.
(I guess it depends on what you're doing.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057012</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30063654</id>
	<title>Re:"Go" name already taken for programming languag</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257105000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>GOTO mod +5 Funny</htmltext>
<tokenext>GOTO mod + 5 Funny</tokentext>
<sentencetext>GOTO mod +5 Funny</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059638</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059794</id>
	<title>Re:"Systems" language?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257089040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're an idiot on two counts:<br>
1. Ada DOES have pointer arithmetic.
2. C++ is NOT stagnant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're an idiot on two counts : 1 .
Ada DOES have pointer arithmetic .
2. C + + is NOT stagnant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're an idiot on two counts:
1.
Ada DOES have pointer arithmetic.
2. C++ is NOT stagnant.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056990</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30062880</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257102180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*cough* Python *cough*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* cough * Python * cough *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*cough* Python *cough*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056532</id>
	<title>Attempting to install it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257877740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not having much luck.  It can't find<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/passwd,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/group or<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/hosts.  All of which do exist.  I'm inserting fmt.Fprintf statements to attempt to figure out why it is having problems.</p><p>A novel idea: make people learn Go by requiring them to modify it in order to install it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not having much luck .
It ca n't find /etc/passwd , /etc/group or /etc/hosts .
All of which do exist .
I 'm inserting fmt.Fprintf statements to attempt to figure out why it is having problems.A novel idea : make people learn Go by requiring them to modify it in order to install it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not having much luck.
It can't find /etc/passwd, /etc/group or /etc/hosts.
All of which do exist.
I'm inserting fmt.Fprintf statements to attempt to figure out why it is having problems.A novel idea: make people learn Go by requiring them to modify it in order to install it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30065436</id>
	<title>Re:Build-in function library</title>
	<author>ukyoCE</author>
	<datestamp>1257068820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In Perl you have a lot more control over what libraries you pull in and how you use them</p></div><p>The flip side is that you have to pull things in to use them, and you often have several 3rd party modules with separate versioning from the core language.  This is added complexity that CAN carry some benefits, but as with any complexity, carries a lot of headaches too.</p><p>I've seen code deployed on a system with the same Perl version as the test system.  A CPAN module for some ridiculously basic thing was on a different version on the production system, and had completely changed the functions and parameters in the update.</p><p>Although having more built-in adds complexity in other ways - like adding security vulnerabilities in features your application may not even use.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Perl you have a lot more control over what libraries you pull in and how you use themThe flip side is that you have to pull things in to use them , and you often have several 3rd party modules with separate versioning from the core language .
This is added complexity that CAN carry some benefits , but as with any complexity , carries a lot of headaches too.I 've seen code deployed on a system with the same Perl version as the test system .
A CPAN module for some ridiculously basic thing was on a different version on the production system , and had completely changed the functions and parameters in the update.Although having more built-in adds complexity in other ways - like adding security vulnerabilities in features your application may not even use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Perl you have a lot more control over what libraries you pull in and how you use themThe flip side is that you have to pull things in to use them, and you often have several 3rd party modules with separate versioning from the core language.
This is added complexity that CAN carry some benefits, but as with any complexity, carries a lot of headaches too.I've seen code deployed on a system with the same Perl version as the test system.
A CPAN module for some ridiculously basic thing was on a different version on the production system, and had completely changed the functions and parameters in the update.Although having more built-in adds complexity in other ways - like adding security vulnerabilities in features your application may not even use.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060278</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>pwfffff</author>
	<datestamp>1257091200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>COBOL</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>COBOL</tokentext>
<sentencetext>COBOL</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059976</id>
	<title>Re:No templates, no party.</title>
	<author>sardaukar\_siet</author>
	<datestamp>1257089820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Finally, the built-in channel mechanism is something that can be done in C++ in less than 100 lines of code.</p></div><p> Dump'em here or it doesn't hold<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally , the built-in channel mechanism is something that can be done in C + + in less than 100 lines of code .
Dump'em here or it does n't hold : D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally, the built-in channel mechanism is something that can be done in C++ in less than 100 lines of code.
Dump'em here or it doesn't hold :D
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058120</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058338</id>
	<title>Re:Build-in function library</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257077640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; PHP? Where they dump all their million built-in functions into one namespace? Lame.</p><p>And let's not forget the utterly dreadful naming standards used. So you get crappy "DOS" style abbreviated function names like "str\_replace", "str\_split" and "strcmp" instead of something meaningful like "StringReplace", "StringSplit" and "StringCompare".</p><p>It's high time that programmers stop using crappy abbreviations for names in programming.  We're not dealing with DOS systems with 8.3 filename limitations and there's no call for laziness.  Using a modern IDE you only have to type the bloody name once anyway (when you declare it) after which the IDE will autocomplete for you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; PHP ?
Where they dump all their million built-in functions into one namespace ?
Lame.And let 's not forget the utterly dreadful naming standards used .
So you get crappy " DOS " style abbreviated function names like " str \ _replace " , " str \ _split " and " strcmp " instead of something meaningful like " StringReplace " , " StringSplit " and " StringCompare " .It 's high time that programmers stop using crappy abbreviations for names in programming .
We 're not dealing with DOS systems with 8.3 filename limitations and there 's no call for laziness .
Using a modern IDE you only have to type the bloody name once anyway ( when you declare it ) after which the IDE will autocomplete for you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; PHP?
Where they dump all their million built-in functions into one namespace?
Lame.And let's not forget the utterly dreadful naming standards used.
So you get crappy "DOS" style abbreviated function names like "str\_replace", "str\_split" and "strcmp" instead of something meaningful like "StringReplace", "StringSplit" and "StringCompare".It's high time that programmers stop using crappy abbreviations for names in programming.
We're not dealing with DOS systems with 8.3 filename limitations and there's no call for laziness.
Using a modern IDE you only have to type the bloody name once anyway (when you declare it) after which the IDE will autocomplete for you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058534</id>
	<title>Re:Named after the most difficult-to-master game e</title>
	<author>glwtta</author>
	<datestamp>1257079740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think they just chose the name so they can use their page numbering convention for future versions:
<br> <br>
version 2: Goo<br>
version 3: Gooo<br>
etc.
<br> <br>
I will probably mature around the time Goooooo comes out - can't wait to use it!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they just chose the name so they can use their page numbering convention for future versions : version 2 : Goo version 3 : Gooo etc .
I will probably mature around the time Goooooo comes out - ca n't wait to use it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they just chose the name so they can use their page numbering convention for future versions:
 
version 2: Goo
version 3: Gooo
etc.
I will probably mature around the time Goooooo comes out - can't wait to use it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056652</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057574</id>
	<title>Re:Fixes problems misguided people think C++ has.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257068280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you ARE a language inventor and reading my comment, answer this: can you write a cache/MMU interface or an interrupt handler in your language? If the answer is no, go back to the drawing board.</p></div><p>Because if you can't do that then you can't do anything right?
<br> <br>
Heres a novel idea. Use a language as a tool, and use the right tool for the job. If you are writing an OS perhaps you need *explicit* access to pointers, or if you are doing something with MMU you would need a asm{} section (thats not C++ either). But when i want to write a application server then that requirement is lame and garbage collection and better memory models frees the developer and compiler (escape analysis etc) to do a lot more of the relevant work.
<br> <br>
We are not all writing an OS, so why the hell do we all need to be using a language that can write an OS? Just like all welders are not all welding Aluminum so they don't all need fancy TiG welders (just like we don't always need to use car analogies).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ARE a language inventor and reading my comment , answer this : can you write a cache/MMU interface or an interrupt handler in your language ?
If the answer is no , go back to the drawing board.Because if you ca n't do that then you ca n't do anything right ?
Heres a novel idea .
Use a language as a tool , and use the right tool for the job .
If you are writing an OS perhaps you need * explicit * access to pointers , or if you are doing something with MMU you would need a asm { } section ( thats not C + + either ) .
But when i want to write a application server then that requirement is lame and garbage collection and better memory models frees the developer and compiler ( escape analysis etc ) to do a lot more of the relevant work .
We are not all writing an OS , so why the hell do we all need to be using a language that can write an OS ?
Just like all welders are not all welding Aluminum so they do n't all need fancy TiG welders ( just like we do n't always need to use car analogies ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you ARE a language inventor and reading my comment, answer this: can you write a cache/MMU interface or an interrupt handler in your language?
If the answer is no, go back to the drawing board.Because if you can't do that then you can't do anything right?
Heres a novel idea.
Use a language as a tool, and use the right tool for the job.
If you are writing an OS perhaps you need *explicit* access to pointers, or if you are doing something with MMU you would need a asm{} section (thats not C++ either).
But when i want to write a application server then that requirement is lame and garbage collection and better memory models frees the developer and compiler (escape analysis etc) to do a lot more of the relevant work.
We are not all writing an OS, so why the hell do we all need to be using a language that can write an OS?
Just like all welders are not all welding Aluminum so they don't all need fancy TiG welders (just like we don't always need to use car analogies).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061816</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe C really is "it" for now...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257097440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>python does this:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I do not want to start another war<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I won't state my opinion</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>python does this :                 I do not want to start another war               I wo n't state my opinion</tokentext>
<sentencetext>python does this:
                I do not want to start another war
              I won't state my opinion</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059738</id>
	<title>the language is an ancient secret</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257088800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>first they made the Go language<br>then they sat watching it's beauty for days.(100, 100 or so...)<br>then they just could not control their love for it so they formed a company called<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... Go Ogle!</p><p>history.stack.pop();<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>first they made the Go languagethen they sat watching it 's beauty for days .
( 100 , 100 or so... ) then they just could not control their love for it so they formed a company called ... .... Go Ogle ! history.stack.pop ( ) ; : -D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>first they made the Go languagethen they sat watching it's beauty for days.
(100, 100 or so...)then they just could not control their love for it so they formed a company called ... .... Go Ogle!history.stack.pop(); :-D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058352</id>
	<title>Re:Fixes problems misguided people think C++ has.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257077760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about FreePascal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about FreePascal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about FreePascal?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061868</id>
	<title>Re:fmt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257097680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>except some java folks took it to the extreme...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>except some java folks took it to the extreme.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>except some java folks took it to the extreme...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060502</id>
	<title>Re:Do we need more languages?</title>
	<author>ynohoo</author>
	<datestamp>1257092280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do CompSci interns need to justify their tenure? Hey look, a programming paradigm!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do CompSci interns need to justify their tenure ?
Hey look , a programming paradigm !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do CompSci interns need to justify their tenure?
Hey look, a programming paradigm!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058002</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30063526</id>
	<title>Re:Google search "Go"</title>
	<author>metamatic</author>
	<datestamp>1257104520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or try finding information about IBM's operating system for System i boxes.</p><p>The OS is called "<a href="http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/i/" title="ibm.com">i</a> [ibm.com]".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or try finding information about IBM 's operating system for System i boxes.The OS is called " i [ ibm.com ] " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or try finding information about IBM's operating system for System i boxes.The OS is called "i [ibm.com]".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056808</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059450</id>
	<title>gccgo? Why not LLVM?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1257087660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm curious as to why they went with gcc instead of LLVM for one of their first backends.  It's pretty obvious there is a slow move to LLVM for everything.  It's a lot easier to work with than gcc (ie. better design.  The BSD's and such are already moving to LLVM/clang and such, it's only a matter of time before everyone else does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm curious as to why they went with gcc instead of LLVM for one of their first backends .
It 's pretty obvious there is a slow move to LLVM for everything .
It 's a lot easier to work with than gcc ( ie .
better design .
The BSD 's and such are already moving to LLVM/clang and such , it 's only a matter of time before everyone else does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm curious as to why they went with gcc instead of LLVM for one of their first backends.
It's pretty obvious there is a slow move to LLVM for everything.
It's a lot easier to work with than gcc (ie.
better design.
The BSD's and such are already moving to LLVM/clang and such, it's only a matter of time before everyone else does.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30072322</id>
	<title>Re:Great, yet another C/Python clone...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1258040040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well stated. I laughed when I read the FAQ. You could take the word "Go" out, put in any other language name, and it looks like the other language's FAQ:</p><p>Why are you creating a new language?</p><p>Go was born out of frustration with existing languages and environments for systems programming. Programming had become too difficult and the choice of languages was partly to blame. One had to choose either efficient compilation, efficient execution, or ease of programming; all three were not available in the same mainstream language. Programmers who could were choosing ease over safety and efficiency by moving to dynamically typed languages such as Python and JavaScript rather than C++ or, to a lesser extent, Java.</p><p>Go is an attempt to combine the ease of programming of an interpreted, dynamically typed language with the efficiency and safety of a statically typed, compiled language. It also aims to be modern, with support for networked and multicore computing. Finally, it is intended to be fast: it should take at most a few seconds to build a large executable on a single computer. To meet these goals required addressing a number of linguistic issues: an expressive but lightweight type system; concurrency and garbage collection; rigid dependency specification; and so on. These cannot be addressed well by libraries or tools; a new language was called for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well stated .
I laughed when I read the FAQ .
You could take the word " Go " out , put in any other language name , and it looks like the other language 's FAQ : Why are you creating a new language ? Go was born out of frustration with existing languages and environments for systems programming .
Programming had become too difficult and the choice of languages was partly to blame .
One had to choose either efficient compilation , efficient execution , or ease of programming ; all three were not available in the same mainstream language .
Programmers who could were choosing ease over safety and efficiency by moving to dynamically typed languages such as Python and JavaScript rather than C + + or , to a lesser extent , Java.Go is an attempt to combine the ease of programming of an interpreted , dynamically typed language with the efficiency and safety of a statically typed , compiled language .
It also aims to be modern , with support for networked and multicore computing .
Finally , it is intended to be fast : it should take at most a few seconds to build a large executable on a single computer .
To meet these goals required addressing a number of linguistic issues : an expressive but lightweight type system ; concurrency and garbage collection ; rigid dependency specification ; and so on .
These can not be addressed well by libraries or tools ; a new language was called for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well stated.
I laughed when I read the FAQ.
You could take the word "Go" out, put in any other language name, and it looks like the other language's FAQ:Why are you creating a new language?Go was born out of frustration with existing languages and environments for systems programming.
Programming had become too difficult and the choice of languages was partly to blame.
One had to choose either efficient compilation, efficient execution, or ease of programming; all three were not available in the same mainstream language.
Programmers who could were choosing ease over safety and efficiency by moving to dynamically typed languages such as Python and JavaScript rather than C++ or, to a lesser extent, Java.Go is an attempt to combine the ease of programming of an interpreted, dynamically typed language with the efficiency and safety of a statically typed, compiled language.
It also aims to be modern, with support for networked and multicore computing.
Finally, it is intended to be fast: it should take at most a few seconds to build a large executable on a single computer.
To meet these goals required addressing a number of linguistic issues: an expressive but lightweight type system; concurrency and garbage collection; rigid dependency specification; and so on.
These cannot be addressed well by libraries or tools; a new language was called for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059374</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058802
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056692
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_139</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_183</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059086
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30065542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_193</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30065564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30070268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059738
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30062478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_169</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30065414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_161</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_178</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061238
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058998
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_188</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_132</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30065094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_172</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30068018
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_156</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_196</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_142</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061928
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_182</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30066072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30066952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_166</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058228
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_150</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30066262
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30067910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_207</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30063428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_128</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_160</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058234
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30066628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_177</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30066184
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_201</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30067246
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_145</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_131</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058964
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057740
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058856
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_155</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30068186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30071108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30067726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30067496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30062864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30065110
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_204</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30062504
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058616
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_136</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064820
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30065878
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057458
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059154
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_158</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30066044
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_198</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057854
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30072530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_168</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056652
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30070514
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30066072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30068104
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057726
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30068522
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058292
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058432
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_185</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057638
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_179</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30116842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30065628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_171</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_149</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_195</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30063966
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_147</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_187</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060398
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30062586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_163</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_157</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064932
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_197</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057044
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057912
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30063654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_165</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30062254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056594
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_134</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30070788
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30062252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_174</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30066072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30075804
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057770
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30069636
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057562
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_206</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060508
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064236
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_184</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058844
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_144</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058542
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058884
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061664
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30067960
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30069530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_152</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_192</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060516
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_190</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056918
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057002
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059794
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_162</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057080
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30083876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059480
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060840
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_203</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30069754
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_133</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30071132
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064954
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056700
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30069426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056940
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059374
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30072322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30067704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059976
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061600
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30065436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061496
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_138</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056808
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30063526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057256
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_176</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30063686
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30069716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_148</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30062880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_200</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30084204
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_146</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30069364
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_186</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061994
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058002
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_154</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058918
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_194</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058658
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30070344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_164</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30062332
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059202
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_173</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057800
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30068846
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_205</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056910
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30062920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_141</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_137</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_189</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30065022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_135</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057574
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060694
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_181</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30063446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061816
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_175</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059962
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_159</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30068426
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_199</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056514
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057284
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_151</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057048
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30068674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_191</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056570
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060848
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_143</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30065016
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057472
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059344
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064808
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_167</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058102
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_153</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057840
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30063818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30070212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061148
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056532
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057392
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058348
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30068294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064026
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_129</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058186
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_130</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058572
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30068074
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056662
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057538
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_170</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30063064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_202</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30070368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056796
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30074940
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_140</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060042
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057294
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_180</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057042
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057628
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059266
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059126
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_11_11_0210212_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057772
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0210212.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064158
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0210212.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057872
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058228
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30069636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058186
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059202
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30116842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058234
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30066628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30068846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30062254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057562
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057472
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058504
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057574
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060906
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30067704
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060694
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059086
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061608
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0210212.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057388
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057048
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30063428
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30068674
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057066
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0210212.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056700
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057050
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056990
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058296
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058258
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058566
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30062252
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30069530
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056918
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057912
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0210212.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057898
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0210212.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059374
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30072322
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0210212.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30067910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059266
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0210212.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30062478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057392
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058998
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0210212.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058002
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060502
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0210212.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058632
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30067246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30084204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064908
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30068426
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0210212.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057042
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30070788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059638
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30063654
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30069426
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30065414
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30070368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064820
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0210212.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30062864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30065110
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0210212.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056630
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30065436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058338
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060840
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30069364
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30066262
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30070268
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057772
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056570
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058298
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058292
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058432
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060848
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056594
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060398
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0210212.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056652
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058534
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30067726
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30066184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30070514
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0210212.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057966
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0210212.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058348
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061496
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30068294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058572
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30062586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059154
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30065016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058884
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061664
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30066044
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30069716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059940
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0210212.30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058064
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30062332
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064026
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0210212.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061650
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0210212.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056514
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057284
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0210212.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30066072
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30075804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30066952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30068104
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0210212.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0210212.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057168
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057758
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057770
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30065564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057164
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057740
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060508
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061868
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0210212.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059554
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0210212.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058960
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30069754
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0210212.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056796
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30071108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30074940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061994
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057012
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30067960
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057800
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30067496
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058918
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057840
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30063818
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30065542
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30070344
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30083876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058658
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0210212.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059126
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0210212.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056662
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057726
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057538
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0210212.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30065878
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30063064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30072530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30063446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30068522
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0210212.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30071132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059294
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057854
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0210212.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30068074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057680
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060516
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064674
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30062880
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30063686
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30063966
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059800
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30068186
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064222
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061148
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060042
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30065094
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064954
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058102
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061272
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061600
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30062504
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059962
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060024
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059602
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057256
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057152
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057686
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058846
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30065628
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060082
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060132
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058682
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061238
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061816
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30070212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061814
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_11_11_0210212.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056542
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057044
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30058082
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060940
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061928
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059738
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056808
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30063526
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30068018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056910
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30062920
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30060916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057638
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056692
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30061506
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30064808
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30056616
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057458
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30065022
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30059480
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_11_11_0210212.30057356
</commentlist>
</conversation>
