<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_01_1317228</id>
	<title>Google Go Capturing Developer Interest</title>
	<author>ScuttleMonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1267457220000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/" rel="nofollow">angry tapir</a> writes with news that Google Go seems to be <a href="http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/337773/google\_go\_captures\_developers\_imaginations/">cutting a wide swath through the programming community</a> in just a short time since its early, experimental release.  While Google insists that Go is still a work in progress (like so many of their offerings), many developers are so intrigued by the feature set that they are already implementing many noncritical applications with it.  What experiences, good or bad, have you had with Google Go, and how likely is it to really take over?</htmltext>
<tokenext>angry tapir writes with news that Google Go seems to be cutting a wide swath through the programming community in just a short time since its early , experimental release .
While Google insists that Go is still a work in progress ( like so many of their offerings ) , many developers are so intrigued by the feature set that they are already implementing many noncritical applications with it .
What experiences , good or bad , have you had with Google Go , and how likely is it to really take over ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>angry tapir writes with news that Google Go seems to be cutting a wide swath through the programming community in just a short time since its early, experimental release.
While Google insists that Go is still a work in progress (like so many of their offerings), many developers are so intrigued by the feature set that they are already implementing many noncritical applications with it.
What experiences, good or bad, have you had with Google Go, and how likely is it to really take over?</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31322812</id>
	<title>Re:already invented?</title>
	<author>onefriedrice</author>
	<datestamp>1267440960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How do you make a concurrent process in D? Perl? Ruby? C? Lisp?</p></div><p>Easy.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Go actually provides a usable, platform independent method of concurrent programming that doesn't involve mucking about with pthreads, or constants like &amp;MMDIPS\_MULTICORE\_AGG. You just call "go func()" and a new process is spawned.</p></div><p>I can do that in even less keystrokes...<br> <br>

fork();<br> <br>

Yeah, you probably don't consider that "platform independent," but Go is marketed as a "systems" language, and all the systems currently supported by Go are all POSIX-compliant.  I understand that Go's language support is value added, but it's not like language support for concurrency is some new thing; you just conveniently listed languages which weren't designed with concurrency in mind while ignoring the dozens of more-mature languages which were.<br> <br>

I have spent some time looking into Go and wasn't generally impressed.  I saw pieces of C, pieces of Erlang, pieces of Python, and a whole lot of quirks.  It has a nice and fast compiler, which I like, but I certainly was not amazed by its innovation or implementation.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you make a concurrent process in D ?
Perl ? Ruby ?
C ? Lisp ? Easy.Go actually provides a usable , platform independent method of concurrent programming that does n't involve mucking about with pthreads , or constants like &amp;MMDIPS \ _MULTICORE \ _AGG .
You just call " go func ( ) " and a new process is spawned.I can do that in even less keystrokes.. . fork ( ) ; Yeah , you probably do n't consider that " platform independent , " but Go is marketed as a " systems " language , and all the systems currently supported by Go are all POSIX-compliant .
I understand that Go 's language support is value added , but it 's not like language support for concurrency is some new thing ; you just conveniently listed languages which were n't designed with concurrency in mind while ignoring the dozens of more-mature languages which were .
I have spent some time looking into Go and was n't generally impressed .
I saw pieces of C , pieces of Erlang , pieces of Python , and a whole lot of quirks .
It has a nice and fast compiler , which I like , but I certainly was not amazed by its innovation or implementation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you make a concurrent process in D?
Perl? Ruby?
C? Lisp?Easy.Go actually provides a usable, platform independent method of concurrent programming that doesn't involve mucking about with pthreads, or constants like &amp;MMDIPS\_MULTICORE\_AGG.
You just call "go func()" and a new process is spawned.I can do that in even less keystrokes... 

fork(); 

Yeah, you probably don't consider that "platform independent," but Go is marketed as a "systems" language, and all the systems currently supported by Go are all POSIX-compliant.
I understand that Go's language support is value added, but it's not like language support for concurrency is some new thing; you just conveniently listed languages which weren't designed with concurrency in mind while ignoring the dozens of more-mature languages which were.
I have spent some time looking into Go and wasn't generally impressed.
I saw pieces of C, pieces of Erlang, pieces of Python, and a whole lot of quirks.
It has a nice and fast compiler, which I like, but I certainly was not amazed by its innovation or implementation.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318288</id>
	<title>No genericity</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1267466940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all, a statically typed language that claims to be high-level, in 2010, with no form of type genericity? Seriously?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>how likely is it to really take over?</p></div><p>Extremely unlikely. So far all I see is "yet another exotic language", of which there are thousands. A new language needs some serious corporate backing (not just "uh, we released this thing, though it's not kinda for production...") and a major marketing push to get it adopted. For an example of how this works (or rather doesn't), look at the much more innovative and mature Scala, which still struggles for adoption. Ditto for D.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all , a statically typed language that claims to be high-level , in 2010 , with no form of type genericity ?
Seriously ? how likely is it to really take over ? Extremely unlikely .
So far all I see is " yet another exotic language " , of which there are thousands .
A new language needs some serious corporate backing ( not just " uh , we released this thing , though it 's not kinda for production... " ) and a major marketing push to get it adopted .
For an example of how this works ( or rather does n't ) , look at the much more innovative and mature Scala , which still struggles for adoption .
Ditto for D .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all, a statically typed language that claims to be high-level, in 2010, with no form of type genericity?
Seriously?how likely is it to really take over?Extremely unlikely.
So far all I see is "yet another exotic language", of which there are thousands.
A new language needs some serious corporate backing (not just "uh, we released this thing, though it's not kinda for production...") and a major marketing push to get it adopted.
For an example of how this works (or rather doesn't), look at the much more innovative and mature Scala, which still struggles for adoption.
Ditto for D.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318732</id>
	<title>Heil Grammatik!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267468560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could someone please fix the "it's" in "[...] in just a short time since it's early, experimental release."?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could someone please fix the " it 's " in " [ ... ] in just a short time since it 's early , experimental release .
" ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could someone please fix the "it's" in "[...] in just a short time since it's early, experimental release.
"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31321180</id>
	<title>Re:already invented?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1267435080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Perl? Ruby? C?</p></div></blockquote><p>Fork() (in C on windows it takes a few more lines of code than just calling fork() but its only a few)</p><p>I can't speak for D or Lisp, I don't know really anything about them as far as actually using them.</p><p>I'm really sorry you don't realize it but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... just because they don't call it a thread or process, doesn't mean its actually something different.</p><p>Programming really hasn't changed in years, multiprocessing is becoming the norm, but its in no way what to ever 'new'.</p><p>From the following quote I'm going to conclude that you're haven't been programming very long.</p><blockquote><div><p>You just call "go func()" and a new process is spawned.</p></div></blockquote><p>The rest of us call this <strong>fork()</strong>.  It may make forking easier for the uninitiated but its not actually any different, and I for one have seen the damage caused by making a language 'easier' to use.  VB and Java a great examples of how making programming 'easier' makes the quality of programs developed with that system noticeably lower than 'harder' systems.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perl ?
Ruby ? C ? Fork ( ) ( in C on windows it takes a few more lines of code than just calling fork ( ) but its only a few ) I ca n't speak for D or Lisp , I do n't know really anything about them as far as actually using them.I 'm really sorry you do n't realize it but ... just because they do n't call it a thread or process , does n't mean its actually something different.Programming really has n't changed in years , multiprocessing is becoming the norm , but its in no way what to ever 'new'.From the following quote I 'm going to conclude that you 're have n't been programming very long.You just call " go func ( ) " and a new process is spawned.The rest of us call this fork ( ) .
It may make forking easier for the uninitiated but its not actually any different , and I for one have seen the damage caused by making a language 'easier ' to use .
VB and Java a great examples of how making programming 'easier ' makes the quality of programs developed with that system noticeably lower than 'harder ' systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perl?
Ruby? C?Fork() (in C on windows it takes a few more lines of code than just calling fork() but its only a few)I can't speak for D or Lisp, I don't know really anything about them as far as actually using them.I'm really sorry you don't realize it but ... just because they don't call it a thread or process, doesn't mean its actually something different.Programming really hasn't changed in years, multiprocessing is becoming the norm, but its in no way what to ever 'new'.From the following quote I'm going to conclude that you're haven't been programming very long.You just call "go func()" and a new process is spawned.The rest of us call this fork().
It may make forking easier for the uninitiated but its not actually any different, and I for one have seen the damage caused by making a language 'easier' to use.
VB and Java a great examples of how making programming 'easier' makes the quality of programs developed with that system noticeably lower than 'harder' systems.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31320268</id>
	<title>Re:You'd Think...</title>
	<author>Homburg</author>
	<datestamp>1267474740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're a search engine giant - they can just change the search engine to <em>make</em> the name search-engine friendly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're a search engine giant - they can just change the search engine to make the name search-engine friendly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're a search engine giant - they can just change the search engine to make the name search-engine friendly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318546</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31323928</id>
	<title>Linking with other languages</title>
	<author>dargaud</author>
	<datestamp>1267445820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Personally I cannot stand languages that lock you in. Meaning that if you cannot link your program to a C system library or a Fortran math library, I won't be using it. Like Java. So how does Go work with other languages ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Personally I can not stand languages that lock you in .
Meaning that if you can not link your program to a C system library or a Fortran math library , I wo n't be using it .
Like Java .
So how does Go work with other languages ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Personally I cannot stand languages that lock you in.
Meaning that if you cannot link your program to a C system library or a Fortran math library, I won't be using it.
Like Java.
So how does Go work with other languages ?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317246</id>
	<title>Go considered harmful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267463160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Considered\_harmful" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Considered\_harmful</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Considered \ _harmful [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Considered\_harmful [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317396</id>
	<title>Re:Bright future to go.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267463700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And the question is, "What is your analysis, Mr. Spock?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And the question is , " What is your analysis , Mr .
Spock ? "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And the question is, "What is your analysis, Mr.
Spock?"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317472</id>
	<title>This article asks the tough questions</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1267464000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Mr. Burns, your campaign has the momentum of a runaway freight train. What makes you so popular?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Mr. Burns , your campaign has the momentum of a runaway freight train .
What makes you so popular ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Mr. Burns, your campaign has the momentum of a runaway freight train.
What makes you so popular?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31321064</id>
	<title>Re:who's using it?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1267434600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318880</id>
	<title>Go?</title>
	<author>BoppreH</author>
	<datestamp>1267469160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Did you mean <b>Issue 9</b>?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Did you mean Issue 9 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did you mean Issue 9?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319152</id>
	<title>Re:already invented?</title>
	<author>Kludge</author>
	<datestamp>1267470420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> You just call "go func()" and a new process is spawned.</p> </div><p>like sh?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You just call " go func ( ) " and a new process is spawned .
like sh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> You just call "go func()" and a new process is spawned.
like sh?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31326234</id>
	<title>Re:Go innovates programming practice, not theory</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267463160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I have recently been really impressed by javascript, as a completely different approach to programming thanks to closures</p></div><p>You do know that closures == memory leaks for Jscript on IE?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have recently been really impressed by javascript , as a completely different approach to programming thanks to closuresYou do know that closures = = memory leaks for Jscript on IE ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have recently been really impressed by javascript, as a completely different approach to programming thanks to closuresYou do know that closures == memory leaks for Jscript on IE?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31320450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31325160</id>
	<title>Re:Oh yeah, that ...</title>
	<author>Dayze!Confused</author>
	<datestamp>1267453500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I must have missed the announcement also, but just this weekend at my local LUG (<a href="http://kalug.linux.org.tw/" title="linux.org.tw" rel="nofollow">KaLUG</a> [linux.org.tw]) this was the topic of a two hour presentation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I must have missed the announcement also , but just this weekend at my local LUG ( KaLUG [ linux.org.tw ] ) this was the topic of a two hour presentation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must have missed the announcement also, but just this weekend at my local LUG (KaLUG [linux.org.tw]) this was the topic of a two hour presentation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318948</id>
	<title>Re:No multi-dimensional arrays</title>
	<author>drewm1980</author>
	<datestamp>1267469400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Last I checked, Go has no language-level support for scientific computing whatsoever.  At MINIMUM they should provide a standardized, fully-strided, ndarray data container, so that the libraries that developers add later will at least be able to easily share data.  And if this is all they provide, I hope at least the language definition is flexible enough to extend the syntax to support things like slicing and broadcasting.</p><p>The scientific and engineering world really needs a language that combines the ease-of-use of python/numpy with language-level support for expressing concurrency.  I hope Go will eventually become this language, but this is clearly not a priority for the Go developers at this time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Last I checked , Go has no language-level support for scientific computing whatsoever .
At MINIMUM they should provide a standardized , fully-strided , ndarray data container , so that the libraries that developers add later will at least be able to easily share data .
And if this is all they provide , I hope at least the language definition is flexible enough to extend the syntax to support things like slicing and broadcasting.The scientific and engineering world really needs a language that combines the ease-of-use of python/numpy with language-level support for expressing concurrency .
I hope Go will eventually become this language , but this is clearly not a priority for the Go developers at this time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last I checked, Go has no language-level support for scientific computing whatsoever.
At MINIMUM they should provide a standardized, fully-strided, ndarray data container, so that the libraries that developers add later will at least be able to easily share data.
And if this is all they provide, I hope at least the language definition is flexible enough to extend the syntax to support things like slicing and broadcasting.The scientific and engineering world really needs a language that combines the ease-of-use of python/numpy with language-level support for expressing concurrency.
I hope Go will eventually become this language, but this is clearly not a priority for the Go developers at this time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31322008</id>
	<title>Re:already invented?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267437960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>[<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... ] fork.</p><p>sigh.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ ... ] fork.sigh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[ ... ] fork.sigh.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316940</id>
	<title>its</title>
	<author>BenoitRen</author>
	<datestamp>1267462080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>in just a short time since <em>it's</em> early, experimental release</p></div> </blockquote><p>its</p><p>Damn apostrophe abusers!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>in just a short time since it 's early , experimental release itsDamn apostrophe abusers !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in just a short time since it's early, experimental release itsDamn apostrophe abusers!
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317910</id>
	<title>Re:Bright future to go.</title>
	<author>Jah-Wren Ryel</author>
	<datestamp>1267465740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am expecting Go to stay</p></div><p>Go stay go!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am expecting Go to stayGo stay go !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am expecting Go to stayGo stay go!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319564</id>
	<title>Re:Bad infomercial</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1267471920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The article is clearly a press release from Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The article is clearly a press release from Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The article is clearly a press release from Google.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31322270</id>
	<title>Re:already invented?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267438920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe that in perl you can prefix function calls with the 'async' keyword to get the same effect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe that in perl you can prefix function calls with the 'async ' keyword to get the same effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe that in perl you can prefix function calls with the 'async' keyword to get the same effect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31320852</id>
	<title>Re:who's using it?</title>
	<author>Unoti</author>
	<datestamp>1267476960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Explicitly declaring thrown exceptions is one key thing I like *better* about Java over C#.  It's a good idea, not a bad one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Explicitly declaring thrown exceptions is one key thing I like * better * about Java over C # .
It 's a good idea , not a bad one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Explicitly declaring thrown exceptions is one key thing I like *better* about Java over C#.
It's a good idea, not a bad one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317046</id>
	<title>already invented?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267462440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why pick Go when there's D which already has a pretty stable platform to develop on?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why pick Go when there 's D which already has a pretty stable platform to develop on ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why pick Go when there's D which already has a pretty stable platform to develop on?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31334486</id>
	<title>Let me say it a millin times.....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267563420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>print "Python is the bestest!! OMG!!" * 1000000</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>print " Python is the bestest ! !
OMG ! ! " * 1000000</tokentext>
<sentencetext>print "Python is the bestest!!
OMG!!" * 1000000</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319990</id>
	<title>Re:What innovation?</title>
	<author>grepya</author>
	<datestamp>1267473540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> Whereas the standard library of a language might specify how threads are available to client applications (programs written in the language), it's best left to the implementation (runtime or compiler) to decide <em>how</em> to translate those threads onto the machine.</p></div> </blockquote><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; No. If you really care about performance (and my job involves caring a lot about performance), it's *not* necessarily best to let the implementation to decide how to handle threading.  Not with the ubiquitous multi-core "SMP" systems -- which are anything *but* symmetric when it comes to memory accesses from different cores on different physical chips. Going to the kernel for thread switching and lock contention can be super-linearly more expensive with the number of cores.   (I would make an exception there about systems like Apple's  libdispatch which, at least in theory, can work directly with the kernel and with deep knowledge of the hardware architecture to schedule my work over the appropriate cores... but that's not we're talking about with a relatively high level language like Go). I haven't looked carefully into Go, but in fact your assertion that it allows me to choose M:N threading (with perhaps tunable M and N), makes me want to find out more about this. And if, as some others here have  asserted, it combines elements of python and C while adding concurrency in the syntax of the language, that's just about the perfect combination of features a bread and butter engineer like myself would be looking for, as opposed to other languages (Erlang et al), that may contain similar multi-processing goodness (message passing between light-weight tasks etc.) but are too far removed from the popular programming paradigms of the day to make them practical in a general-purpose programming context.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whereas the standard library of a language might specify how threads are available to client applications ( programs written in the language ) , it 's best left to the implementation ( runtime or compiler ) to decide how to translate those threads onto the machine .
    No .
If you really care about performance ( and my job involves caring a lot about performance ) , it 's * not * necessarily best to let the implementation to decide how to handle threading .
Not with the ubiquitous multi-core " SMP " systems -- which are anything * but * symmetric when it comes to memory accesses from different cores on different physical chips .
Going to the kernel for thread switching and lock contention can be super-linearly more expensive with the number of cores .
( I would make an exception there about systems like Apple 's libdispatch which , at least in theory , can work directly with the kernel and with deep knowledge of the hardware architecture to schedule my work over the appropriate cores... but that 's not we 're talking about with a relatively high level language like Go ) .
I have n't looked carefully into Go , but in fact your assertion that it allows me to choose M : N threading ( with perhaps tunable M and N ) , makes me want to find out more about this .
And if , as some others here have asserted , it combines elements of python and C while adding concurrency in the syntax of the language , that 's just about the perfect combination of features a bread and butter engineer like myself would be looking for , as opposed to other languages ( Erlang et al ) , that may contain similar multi-processing goodness ( message passing between light-weight tasks etc .
) but are too far removed from the popular programming paradigms of the day to make them practical in a general-purpose programming context .
     </tokentext>
<sentencetext> Whereas the standard library of a language might specify how threads are available to client applications (programs written in the language), it's best left to the implementation (runtime or compiler) to decide how to translate those threads onto the machine.
    No.
If you really care about performance (and my job involves caring a lot about performance), it's *not* necessarily best to let the implementation to decide how to handle threading.
Not with the ubiquitous multi-core "SMP" systems -- which are anything *but* symmetric when it comes to memory accesses from different cores on different physical chips.
Going to the kernel for thread switching and lock contention can be super-linearly more expensive with the number of cores.
(I would make an exception there about systems like Apple's  libdispatch which, at least in theory, can work directly with the kernel and with deep knowledge of the hardware architecture to schedule my work over the appropriate cores... but that's not we're talking about with a relatively high level language like Go).
I haven't looked carefully into Go, but in fact your assertion that it allows me to choose M:N threading (with perhaps tunable M and N), makes me want to find out more about this.
And if, as some others here have  asserted, it combines elements of python and C while adding concurrency in the syntax of the language, that's just about the perfect combination of features a bread and butter engineer like myself would be looking for, as opposed to other languages (Erlang et al), that may contain similar multi-processing goodness (message passing between light-weight tasks etc.
) but are too far removed from the popular programming paradigms of the day to make them practical in a general-purpose programming context.
     
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317792</id>
	<title>Re:No multi-dimensional arrays</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267465260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because your block of memory should already be contiguous with respect to your data segment. memory references are already a constant time operation, you think GCC compiles char**  with 2 memory dereferences from a statically allocated array? That's a SINGLE load (or store) operation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because your block of memory should already be contiguous with respect to your data segment .
memory references are already a constant time operation , you think GCC compiles char * * with 2 memory dereferences from a statically allocated array ?
That 's a SINGLE load ( or store ) operation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because your block of memory should already be contiguous with respect to your data segment.
memory references are already a constant time operation, you think GCC compiles char**  with 2 memory dereferences from a statically allocated array?
That's a SINGLE load (or store) operation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31321300</id>
	<title>Re:already invented?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1267435380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why pick Go when there's D which already has a pretty stable platform to develop on?</p></div><p>D is not really a stable platform, either, unfortunately.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why pick Go when there 's D which already has a pretty stable platform to develop on ? D is not really a stable platform , either , unfortunately .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why pick Go when there's D which already has a pretty stable platform to develop on?D is not really a stable platform, either, unfortunately.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318140</id>
	<title>Re:Another stagnant programming language</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1267466460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The programming community has been stuck at 3GL for way too long.</p></div><p>When Java and C++, of all things, are getting closures, you know things are moving. Slowly as it may seem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The programming community has been stuck at 3GL for way too long.When Java and C + + , of all things , are getting closures , you know things are moving .
Slowly as it may seem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The programming community has been stuck at 3GL for way too long.When Java and C++, of all things, are getting closures, you know things are moving.
Slowly as it may seem.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31320596</id>
	<title>Can hello world be email hello world</title>
	<author>Twillerror</author>
	<datestamp>1267476000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would love it if any new language tutorial didn't just print hello world to the console.</p><p>Who the hell needs to do that anymore.</p><p>Any language should be able to send an email and vaildate an email out of the box. Otherwise I'll just use Python...etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would love it if any new language tutorial did n't just print hello world to the console.Who the hell needs to do that anymore.Any language should be able to send an email and vaildate an email out of the box .
Otherwise I 'll just use Python...etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would love it if any new language tutorial didn't just print hello world to the console.Who the hell needs to do that anymore.Any language should be able to send an email and vaildate an email out of the box.
Otherwise I'll just use Python...etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316680</id>
	<title>"many developers are so intrigued"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267461120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Translation:  Someone is drumming up some marketing astroturf for a single-company controlled proprietary language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Translation : Someone is drumming up some marketing astroturf for a single-company controlled proprietary language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Translation:  Someone is drumming up some marketing astroturf for a single-company controlled proprietary language.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319484</id>
	<title>Re:who's using it?</title>
	<author>Eivind Eklund</author>
	<datestamp>1267471680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your "is too hard" idea is the opposite of what I see - I see very good programmers changing languages early, and mediocre programmers coming along later (or sticking with whatever they learned).</p><p>Eivind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your " is too hard " idea is the opposite of what I see - I see very good programmers changing languages early , and mediocre programmers coming along later ( or sticking with whatever they learned ) .Eivind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your "is too hard" idea is the opposite of what I see - I see very good programmers changing languages early, and mediocre programmers coming along later (or sticking with whatever they learned).Eivind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319096</id>
	<title>What's wrong with Ruby?</title>
	<author>cabazorro</author>
	<datestamp>1267470120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>10.times do p "Ruby is it\n" end</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>10.times do p " Ruby is it \ n " end</tokentext>
<sentencetext>10.times do p "Ruby is it\n" end</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319438</id>
	<title>Shifting Paradigms</title>
	<author>ThatsNotPudding</author>
	<datestamp>1267471500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>AdSense monitors all code comments.</htmltext>
<tokenext>AdSense monitors all code comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AdSense monitors all code comments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317802</id>
	<title>Eh?</title>
	<author>thePowerOfGrayskull</author>
	<datestamp>1267465320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>angry tapir  writes with news that Google Go seems to be cutting a wide swath through the programming community</p></div><p>He may write that, but that's not what the article says:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>While Go is still a work in progress, <b>some developers</b> are so encouraged by its features and design that they have started using it to build noncritical application</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>What experiences, good or bad, have you had with Google Go, and how likely is it to really take over?</p></div><p>Um, take over what? Is this a serious question?  The answer here is "never" -- for the same reason that no single language will ever "take over" the software development landscape. There is no one tool fit for every job.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>angry tapir writes with news that Google Go seems to be cutting a wide swath through the programming communityHe may write that , but that 's not what the article says : While Go is still a work in progress , some developers are so encouraged by its features and design that they have started using it to build noncritical applicationWhat experiences , good or bad , have you had with Google Go , and how likely is it to really take over ? Um , take over what ?
Is this a serious question ?
The answer here is " never " -- for the same reason that no single language will ever " take over " the software development landscape .
There is no one tool fit for every job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>angry tapir  writes with news that Google Go seems to be cutting a wide swath through the programming communityHe may write that, but that's not what the article says:While Go is still a work in progress, some developers are so encouraged by its features and design that they have started using it to build noncritical applicationWhat experiences, good or bad, have you had with Google Go, and how likely is it to really take over?Um, take over what?
Is this a serious question?
The answer here is "never" -- for the same reason that no single language will ever "take over" the software development landscape.
There is no one tool fit for every job.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316752</id>
	<title>If I google go...</title>
	<author>pmontra</author>
	<datestamp>1267461360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...luckily the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go\_(game)" title="wikipedia.org">game</a> [wikipedia.org] still comes before the programming language.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...luckily the game [ wikipedia.org ] still comes before the programming language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...luckily the game [wikipedia.org] still comes before the programming language.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318546</id>
	<title>You'd Think...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267467900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...a search engine giant might name it something a lil more search engine friendly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...a search engine giant might name it something a lil more search engine friendly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...a search engine giant might name it something a lil more search engine friendly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319320</id>
	<title>Re:already invented?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267471080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In C and Perl: fork().</p><p>News flash: Go isn't "platform independent". It only works on x86. GCCGO is broken as it doesn't support segmented stacks, so concurrency doesn't scale nearly as well. In fact, GCCGO is doomed (much like GCC D) unless and until the Go developers drop their separate compiler and focus on GCCGO.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In C and Perl : fork ( ) .News flash : Go is n't " platform independent " .
It only works on x86 .
GCCGO is broken as it does n't support segmented stacks , so concurrency does n't scale nearly as well .
In fact , GCCGO is doomed ( much like GCC D ) unless and until the Go developers drop their separate compiler and focus on GCCGO .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In C and Perl: fork().News flash: Go isn't "platform independent".
It only works on x86.
GCCGO is broken as it doesn't support segmented stacks, so concurrency doesn't scale nearly as well.
In fact, GCCGO is doomed (much like GCC D) unless and until the Go developers drop their separate compiler and focus on GCCGO.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317104</id>
	<title>LG logo = Pac-Man</title>
	<author>VMaN</author>
	<datestamp>1267462680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wakka Wakka Wakka</p><p><a href="http://d.imagehost.org/0731/lg\_logo\_is\_pac-man\_jpg-550x0.jpg" title="imagehost.org" rel="nofollow">http://d.imagehost.org/0731/lg\_logo\_is\_pac-man\_jpg-550x0.jpg</a> [imagehost.org]</p><p>(warning, you cannot unsee it)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wakka Wakka Wakkahttp : //d.imagehost.org/0731/lg \ _logo \ _is \ _pac-man \ _jpg-550x0.jpg [ imagehost.org ] ( warning , you can not unsee it )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wakka Wakka Wakkahttp://d.imagehost.org/0731/lg\_logo\_is\_pac-man\_jpg-550x0.jpg [imagehost.org](warning, you cannot unsee it)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318382</id>
	<title>Re:already invented?</title>
	<author>DragonWriter</author>
	<datestamp>1267467300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why pick Go when there's D which already has a pretty stable platform to develop on?</p></div></blockquote><p>For Erlang-style concurrency.</p><p>(OTOH, then the question becomes why pick Go when there's Erlang already...)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why pick Go when there 's D which already has a pretty stable platform to develop on ? For Erlang-style concurrency .
( OTOH , then the question becomes why pick Go when there 's Erlang already... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why pick Go when there's D which already has a pretty stable platform to develop on?For Erlang-style concurrency.
(OTOH, then the question becomes why pick Go when there's Erlang already...)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316788</id>
	<title>Nothing special</title>
	<author>Dunderflute</author>
	<datestamp>1267461540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's all just a bunch of hype. Last time I checked the language wasn't even finished.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all just a bunch of hype .
Last time I checked the language was n't even finished .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all just a bunch of hype.
Last time I checked the language wasn't even finished.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317428</id>
	<title>Re:Alternatives?</title>
	<author>zach\_the\_lizard</author>
	<datestamp>1267463880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's Scala, Erlang, and, as you mentioned, Haskell. All of them have active development, but I am most familiar with Haskell itself. All of them have the advantage that any more established language will have: they will have better or more numerous compilers, libraries, and instructional materials. They all have mindshare that Go does not have. In the case of Haskell, Haskell has a very strong type system and lazy evaluation, in addition to being a mostly pure functional language. Go does not use LE from what I can tell, and this will have important effects on the optimizations that can be done. Haskell tends to avoid mutable types and side effects, which can make it easier to go parallel, but they can also cause it to miss out on things like the  (efficient) quicksort algorithm. If you can't modify an array in place, it become pointless to use that algorithm. Without more information on Go, I cannot say much more.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's Scala , Erlang , and , as you mentioned , Haskell .
All of them have active development , but I am most familiar with Haskell itself .
All of them have the advantage that any more established language will have : they will have better or more numerous compilers , libraries , and instructional materials .
They all have mindshare that Go does not have .
In the case of Haskell , Haskell has a very strong type system and lazy evaluation , in addition to being a mostly pure functional language .
Go does not use LE from what I can tell , and this will have important effects on the optimizations that can be done .
Haskell tends to avoid mutable types and side effects , which can make it easier to go parallel , but they can also cause it to miss out on things like the ( efficient ) quicksort algorithm .
If you ca n't modify an array in place , it become pointless to use that algorithm .
Without more information on Go , I can not say much more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's Scala, Erlang, and, as you mentioned, Haskell.
All of them have active development, but I am most familiar with Haskell itself.
All of them have the advantage that any more established language will have: they will have better or more numerous compilers, libraries, and instructional materials.
They all have mindshare that Go does not have.
In the case of Haskell, Haskell has a very strong type system and lazy evaluation, in addition to being a mostly pure functional language.
Go does not use LE from what I can tell, and this will have important effects on the optimizations that can be done.
Haskell tends to avoid mutable types and side effects, which can make it easier to go parallel, but they can also cause it to miss out on things like the  (efficient) quicksort algorithm.
If you can't modify an array in place, it become pointless to use that algorithm.
Without more information on Go, I cannot say much more.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317464</id>
	<title>Re:who's using it?</title>
	<author>hans\_e</author>
	<datestamp>1267464000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You forgot the final logical step.
<p>
"Go is too hard.  I'm going to write my own language."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot the final logical step .
" Go is too hard .
I 'm going to write my own language .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot the final logical step.
"Go is too hard.
I'm going to write my own language.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318986</id>
	<title>same ...</title>
	<author>Lazy Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1267469580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... paid marketing again, it's really sad.

(OK I lied, I somehow found my way to the Go page once in those 4 months and found nothing worthwhile)</htmltext>
<tokenext>... paid marketing again , it 's really sad .
( OK I lied , I somehow found my way to the Go page once in those 4 months and found nothing worthwhile )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... paid marketing again, it's really sad.
(OK I lied, I somehow found my way to the Go page once in those 4 months and found nothing worthwhile)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317080</id>
	<title>Alternatives?</title>
	<author>Filik</author>
	<datestamp>1267462560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Could anyone post a list of alternative modern programming languages that equally handles parallelism as well, that are still being actively developed, and their pros and cons compared to Google Go?  I'm interested in learning one of these, I just can't find any easy overview anywhere (all mentioned in wikipedia are pretty old so lots must be missing...).  Surely Haskell isn't the latest such project, there must be lots of others just around corner?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could anyone post a list of alternative modern programming languages that equally handles parallelism as well , that are still being actively developed , and their pros and cons compared to Google Go ?
I 'm interested in learning one of these , I just ca n't find any easy overview anywhere ( all mentioned in wikipedia are pretty old so lots must be missing... ) .
Surely Haskell is n't the latest such project , there must be lots of others just around corner ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could anyone post a list of alternative modern programming languages that equally handles parallelism as well, that are still being actively developed, and their pros and cons compared to Google Go?
I'm interested in learning one of these, I just can't find any easy overview anywhere (all mentioned in wikipedia are pretty old so lots must be missing...).
Surely Haskell isn't the latest such project, there must be lots of others just around corner?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316854</id>
	<title>Slashvertisement</title>
	<author>oldhack</author>
	<datestamp>1267461780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That is all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That is all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317744</id>
	<title>Whitespace</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267465080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Too bad they added significant whitespace. I'd support a semicolon-less syntax, but not at the cost of significant whitespace.<br>Perhaps an alternate function call syntax or using {}instead of () in expressions would work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad they added significant whitespace .
I 'd support a semicolon-less syntax , but not at the cost of significant whitespace.Perhaps an alternate function call syntax or using { } instead of ( ) in expressions would work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Too bad they added significant whitespace.
I'd support a semicolon-less syntax, but not at the cost of significant whitespace.Perhaps an alternate function call syntax or using {}instead of () in expressions would work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317790</id>
	<title>Re:already invented?</title>
	<author>ObsessiveMathsFreak</author>
	<datestamp>1267465260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How do you make a concurrent process in D? Perl? Ruby? C? Lisp?</p><p>Go actually provides a usable, platform independent method of concurrent programming that doesn't involve mucking about with pthreads, or constants like &amp;MMDIPS\_MULTICORE\_AGG. You just call "go func()" and a new process is spawned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you make a concurrent process in D ?
Perl ? Ruby ?
C ? Lisp ? Go actually provides a usable , platform independent method of concurrent programming that does n't involve mucking about with pthreads , or constants like &amp;MMDIPS \ _MULTICORE \ _AGG .
You just call " go func ( ) " and a new process is spawned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you make a concurrent process in D?
Perl? Ruby?
C? Lisp?Go actually provides a usable, platform independent method of concurrent programming that doesn't involve mucking about with pthreads, or constants like &amp;MMDIPS\_MULTICORE\_AGG.
You just call "go func()" and a new process is spawned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317046</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316666</id>
	<title>Oh yeah, that ...</title>
	<author>checkitout</author>
	<datestamp>1267461060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Until this article, I forgot it was ever announced.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Until this article , I forgot it was ever announced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until this article, I forgot it was ever announced.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31320322</id>
	<title>Re:Whitespace</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267474860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm with you. I stopped using it when that came up. When I criticized it I was flatly told I was wrong by developers, based on incorrect assumptions. When I took their words out of my mouth and explained myself better I was just ignored. Thus ended my interest in the issue, and the language.</p><p>At this point Erlang is simpler to write and maintain. Without callback support in the FFI it's really no better as a systems language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm with you .
I stopped using it when that came up .
When I criticized it I was flatly told I was wrong by developers , based on incorrect assumptions .
When I took their words out of my mouth and explained myself better I was just ignored .
Thus ended my interest in the issue , and the language.At this point Erlang is simpler to write and maintain .
Without callback support in the FFI it 's really no better as a systems language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm with you.
I stopped using it when that came up.
When I criticized it I was flatly told I was wrong by developers, based on incorrect assumptions.
When I took their words out of my mouth and explained myself better I was just ignored.
Thus ended my interest in the issue, and the language.At this point Erlang is simpler to write and maintain.
Without callback support in the FFI it's really no better as a systems language.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317720</id>
	<title>Re:No multi-dimensional arrays</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267464960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because C is a low-level system programming language.  You can roll multidimensional arrays a million different ways in C, or choose a million different languages that have them natively.</p><p>If you are keeping to Fortran I suspect you are not doing any low-level system programming at all.  In which case, sure, dodge C.</p><p>As for performance, are you still using a machine without an L1 cache?!  The double memory reference for NumRec-style multi-dimensional arrays shouldn't be an issue for sensible access patterns, and if you don't have sensible access patterns in the first place, your performance already sucks and can't be blamed on this device.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because C is a low-level system programming language .
You can roll multidimensional arrays a million different ways in C , or choose a million different languages that have them natively.If you are keeping to Fortran I suspect you are not doing any low-level system programming at all .
In which case , sure , dodge C.As for performance , are you still using a machine without an L1 cache ? !
The double memory reference for NumRec-style multi-dimensional arrays should n't be an issue for sensible access patterns , and if you do n't have sensible access patterns in the first place , your performance already sucks and ca n't be blamed on this device .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because C is a low-level system programming language.
You can roll multidimensional arrays a million different ways in C, or choose a million different languages that have them natively.If you are keeping to Fortran I suspect you are not doing any low-level system programming at all.
In which case, sure, dodge C.As for performance, are you still using a machine without an L1 cache?!
The double memory reference for NumRec-style multi-dimensional arrays shouldn't be an issue for sensible access patterns, and if you don't have sensible access patterns in the first place, your performance already sucks and can't be blamed on this device.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31325032</id>
	<title>Re:already invented?</title>
	<author>michaelmuffin</author>
	<datestamp>1267452420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How do you make a concurrent process in [...] C?</p></div><p>with the plan 9 thread library. it has channels similar to those in go for synchronization<br>
<br>
<a href="http://swtch.com/plan9port/man/man3/thread.html" title="swtch.com">http://swtch.com/plan9port/man/man3/thread.html</a> [swtch.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you make a concurrent process in [ ... ] C ? with the plan 9 thread library .
it has channels similar to those in go for synchronization http : //swtch.com/plan9port/man/man3/thread.html [ swtch.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you make a concurrent process in [...] C?with the plan 9 thread library.
it has channels similar to those in go for synchronization

http://swtch.com/plan9port/man/man3/thread.html [swtch.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31320666</id>
	<title>Re:No multi-dimensional arrays</title>
	<author>ajs</author>
	<datestamp>1267476360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Go looks nice, but it still does not have real multi-dimensional arrays. This is the key issue that keeps me using Fortran.</p></div><p>Because it's spurious optimization.</p><p>Modern HLLs (and even most of the languages that live in the spaces between machine language/C and HLLs) spend so much time doing bounds protection, reference counting, garbage collection, constructing, destructing, etc, that if you find yourself in need of the extra cycle indicated by a double-indirect lookup, then you need to use a lower level tool for that code section, not a 2D array. In many languages this is commonly found in image processing and large math libraries. PIL for Python, PDL for Perl, etc. are designed to perform these low-level operations in a way that the high level language can manage cleanly.</p><p>You don't need a huge tumor on the side of the language syntax just so that your reference counted, garbage collected, safe accessed arrays are stored without an extra pointer. That would be absurd.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go looks nice , but it still does not have real multi-dimensional arrays .
This is the key issue that keeps me using Fortran.Because it 's spurious optimization.Modern HLLs ( and even most of the languages that live in the spaces between machine language/C and HLLs ) spend so much time doing bounds protection , reference counting , garbage collection , constructing , destructing , etc , that if you find yourself in need of the extra cycle indicated by a double-indirect lookup , then you need to use a lower level tool for that code section , not a 2D array .
In many languages this is commonly found in image processing and large math libraries .
PIL for Python , PDL for Perl , etc .
are designed to perform these low-level operations in a way that the high level language can manage cleanly.You do n't need a huge tumor on the side of the language syntax just so that your reference counted , garbage collected , safe accessed arrays are stored without an extra pointer .
That would be absurd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go looks nice, but it still does not have real multi-dimensional arrays.
This is the key issue that keeps me using Fortran.Because it's spurious optimization.Modern HLLs (and even most of the languages that live in the spaces between machine language/C and HLLs) spend so much time doing bounds protection, reference counting, garbage collection, constructing, destructing, etc, that if you find yourself in need of the extra cycle indicated by a double-indirect lookup, then you need to use a lower level tool for that code section, not a 2D array.
In many languages this is commonly found in image processing and large math libraries.
PIL for Python, PDL for Perl, etc.
are designed to perform these low-level operations in a way that the high level language can manage cleanly.You don't need a huge tumor on the side of the language syntax just so that your reference counted, garbage collected, safe accessed arrays are stored without an extra pointer.
That would be absurd.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318378</id>
	<title>Re:No multi-dimensional arrays</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267467300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>WTF don't any C derived languages have real multi-dimensional arrays?</p></div></blockquote><p>C# has built-in support for true multi-dimensional arrays (in addition to support for Java-style jagged arrays). Boost provides multi-dimensional arrays for C++. The C# operations are safe by default; Boost can be compiled with or without range checking, similar to Fortran.</p><p>It's true that Go currently does not offer <i>dynamic</i> multi-dimensional arrays, but at least they offer static multi-dimensional arrays, which are useful in many situations (for example, modeling transformation matrices).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF do n't any C derived languages have real multi-dimensional arrays ? C # has built-in support for true multi-dimensional arrays ( in addition to support for Java-style jagged arrays ) .
Boost provides multi-dimensional arrays for C + + .
The C # operations are safe by default ; Boost can be compiled with or without range checking , similar to Fortran.It 's true that Go currently does not offer dynamic multi-dimensional arrays , but at least they offer static multi-dimensional arrays , which are useful in many situations ( for example , modeling transformation matrices ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF don't any C derived languages have real multi-dimensional arrays?C# has built-in support for true multi-dimensional arrays (in addition to support for Java-style jagged arrays).
Boost provides multi-dimensional arrays for C++.
The C# operations are safe by default; Boost can be compiled with or without range checking, similar to Fortran.It's true that Go currently does not offer dynamic multi-dimensional arrays, but at least they offer static multi-dimensional arrays, which are useful in many situations (for example, modeling transformation matrices).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31320034</id>
	<title>Re:No multi-dimensional arrays</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267473660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>C# is not a C derived language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>C # is not a C derived language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C# is not a C derived language.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31326254</id>
	<title>Re:already invented?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267463340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>D2 has multiprocessing built into it.  If they would have stopped wildly changing the damn language years ago, it would be the king here.</p><p>Oh goodie.  Another language that makes it super easy for a programmer to spawn off a zombie apocalypse of threads.  I can smell the stability from here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>D2 has multiprocessing built into it .
If they would have stopped wildly changing the damn language years ago , it would be the king here.Oh goodie .
Another language that makes it super easy for a programmer to spawn off a zombie apocalypse of threads .
I can smell the stability from here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>D2 has multiprocessing built into it.
If they would have stopped wildly changing the damn language years ago, it would be the king here.Oh goodie.
Another language that makes it super easy for a programmer to spawn off a zombie apocalypse of threads.
I can smell the stability from here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319430</id>
	<title>Re:who's using it?</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1267471500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>C# was developed as a reaction to Java. They were trying to make a language with Java's features but without its warts. I'm sure it is easier than Java for many things.</p><p>Ruby and Python were both developed as reactions to Perl (again: all the features, sans the warts). Python tried to be easy for beginner programmers (and was successful; it's taught in many intro classes). Ruby tried to be easy to experienced programmers. If you're trying to to real OOP, you will find no easier syntax than Ruby's.</p><p>So, at least in some ways, both those languages are "easier."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>C # was developed as a reaction to Java .
They were trying to make a language with Java 's features but without its warts .
I 'm sure it is easier than Java for many things.Ruby and Python were both developed as reactions to Perl ( again : all the features , sans the warts ) .
Python tried to be easy for beginner programmers ( and was successful ; it 's taught in many intro classes ) .
Ruby tried to be easy to experienced programmers .
If you 're trying to to real OOP , you will find no easier syntax than Ruby 's.So , at least in some ways , both those languages are " easier .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C# was developed as a reaction to Java.
They were trying to make a language with Java's features but without its warts.
I'm sure it is easier than Java for many things.Ruby and Python were both developed as reactions to Perl (again: all the features, sans the warts).
Python tried to be easy for beginner programmers (and was successful; it's taught in many intro classes).
Ruby tried to be easy to experienced programmers.
If you're trying to to real OOP, you will find no easier syntax than Ruby's.So, at least in some ways, both those languages are "easier.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317500</id>
	<title>Re:Oh yeah, that ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267464120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Same here - when it was announced I looked into it and was impressed but then promptly forgot about it...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Same here - when it was announced I looked into it and was impressed but then promptly forgot about it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Same here - when it was announced I looked into it and was impressed but then promptly forgot about it...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318226</id>
	<title>Go!</title>
	<author>jalefkowit</author>
	<datestamp>1267466760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Go? That's the language that Toyota uses to write their firmware, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go ?
That 's the language that Toyota uses to write their firmware , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go?
That's the language that Toyota uses to write their firmware, right?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316932</id>
	<title>who's using it?</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1267462020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>"C++ is too hard, I'll use java.  java is too hard, I'll use C#.  C# is too hard, I'll use python.  Python is too hard (boner?), I'll use ruby.  ruby is too hard, I'll use Go." -- GoFanBoy (formerly RubyFanBoy, formerly PythonFanBoy, formerly<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...)</htmltext>
<tokenext>" C + + is too hard , I 'll use java .
java is too hard , I 'll use C # .
C # is too hard , I 'll use python .
Python is too hard ( boner ?
) , I 'll use ruby .
ruby is too hard , I 'll use Go .
" -- GoFanBoy ( formerly RubyFanBoy , formerly PythonFanBoy , formerly ... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"C++ is too hard, I'll use java.
java is too hard, I'll use C#.
C# is too hard, I'll use python.
Python is too hard (boner?
), I'll use ruby.
ruby is too hard, I'll use Go.
" -- GoFanBoy (formerly RubyFanBoy, formerly PythonFanBoy, formerly ...)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31337248</id>
	<title>Re:Alternatives?</title>
	<author>descubes</author>
	<datestamp>1267530540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's <a href="http://xlr.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net">XL</a> [sourceforge.net]. OK, to be honest, it doesn't handle parallelism that well yet, but how this will be done is understood. And whether it's actively developed or not depends on your definition of "actively"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>Pros:</p><p>
&nbsp; - Designed for meta-programming<br>
&nbsp; - Extensible (you can <a href="http://xlr.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=xlr/xlr;a=blob;f=xl2/native/TESTS/07.Plugins/differentiation\_code.xl;h=7954bced335585490b9cf6750af3341cde524d34;hb=143d9520f7940fe84ce40dec25f7c03f5b6f3b88" title="sourceforge.net">add your own notations</a> [sourceforge.net] with compiler plug-ins)<br>
&nbsp; - No forced placement of { and } (largely because you don't need them)<br>
&nbsp; - Probably the first language where you could redefine a <a href="http://xlr.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=xlr/xlr;a=blob;f=xl2/native/library/xl.text\_io.xs;h=e4335236d4356fc568350b985f29d2ff36b78d16;hb=143d9520f7940fe84ce40dec25f7c03f5b6f3b88" title="sourceforge.net">Pascal-like WriteLn</a> [sourceforge.net] (way back in 2000 or so)<br>
&nbsp; - The XL compiler is written in XL (the Go compiler isn't written in Go)<br>
&nbsp; - Expression reduction, a <a href="http://xlr.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=xlr/xlr;a=blob;f=xl2/native/TESTS/05.Expressions/multi-reduction.xl;h=e0064a5f7414593d92c7cc139220ca337893d2b1;hb=143d9520f7940fe84ce40dec25f7c03f5b6f3b88" title="sourceforge.net">generalized form of operator overloading</a> [sourceforge.net], e.g. define expression A+B*C=0 when A, B and C are matrices<br>
&nbsp; - True generic types, e.g. a way to <a href="http://xlr.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=xlr/xlr;a=blob;f=xl2/native/TESTS/12.Library/demichel-abort.xl;h=a2d6c966981f58fbbb659e902992e2bf0dfdb44b;hb=143d9520f7940fe84ce40dec25f7c03f5b6f3b88" title="sourceforge.net">use "array" as a type to denote code that doesn't care about element type or size</a> [sourceforge.net]<br>
&nbsp; - Generic validation, i.e. <a href="http://xlr.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=xlr/xlr;a=blob;f=xl2/native/TESTS/10.Generics/validation\_success.xl;h=c2b23332dfe65c0f374b5f4e48ba99e6f6a514c0;hb=143d9520f7940fe84ce40dec25f7c03f5b6f3b88" title="sourceforge.net">detect in the specification whether it's OK to use a given generic type</a> [sourceforge.net], e.g. maximum only works if you have an order relation.<br>
&nbsp; - Generates C or Java (work currently in progress for generating machine code on the fly using LLVM)<br>
&nbsp; - No parser-injected semi-colons. What were they thinking?<br>
&nbsp; - OTOH, the new-line that separates statements is an infix operator (and so is the semi-colon). Now, <em>that</em> is cool.<br>
&nbsp; - Very simple base syntax, implemented within less than <a href="http://xlr.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=xlr/xlr;a=blob\_plain;f=xl2/native/xl.parser.xl;hb=143d9520f7940fe84ce40dec25f7c03f5b6f3b88" title="sourceforge.net">1000 lines of code</a> [sourceforge.net]</p><p>Cons:</p><p>
&nbsp; - Not backed by Google or any large company<br>
&nbsp; - Never went much beyond the "amusing exercise in compiler technology" stage, i.e. not used for any real stuff</p><p>Disclaimer: I invented and implemented that language, which means that <em>you</em> are probably biased<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's XL [ sourceforge.net ] .
OK , to be honest , it does n't handle parallelism that well yet , but how this will be done is understood .
And whether it 's actively developed or not depends on your definition of " actively " ; - ) Pros :   - Designed for meta-programming   - Extensible ( you can add your own notations [ sourceforge.net ] with compiler plug-ins )   - No forced placement of { and } ( largely because you do n't need them )   - Probably the first language where you could redefine a Pascal-like WriteLn [ sourceforge.net ] ( way back in 2000 or so )   - The XL compiler is written in XL ( the Go compiler is n't written in Go )   - Expression reduction , a generalized form of operator overloading [ sourceforge.net ] , e.g .
define expression A + B * C = 0 when A , B and C are matrices   - True generic types , e.g .
a way to use " array " as a type to denote code that does n't care about element type or size [ sourceforge.net ]   - Generic validation , i.e .
detect in the specification whether it 's OK to use a given generic type [ sourceforge.net ] , e.g .
maximum only works if you have an order relation .
  - Generates C or Java ( work currently in progress for generating machine code on the fly using LLVM )   - No parser-injected semi-colons .
What were they thinking ?
  - OTOH , the new-line that separates statements is an infix operator ( and so is the semi-colon ) .
Now , that is cool .
  - Very simple base syntax , implemented within less than 1000 lines of code [ sourceforge.net ] Cons :   - Not backed by Google or any large company   - Never went much beyond the " amusing exercise in compiler technology " stage , i.e .
not used for any real stuffDisclaimer : I invented and implemented that language , which means that you are probably biased : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's XL [sourceforge.net].
OK, to be honest, it doesn't handle parallelism that well yet, but how this will be done is understood.
And whether it's actively developed or not depends on your definition of "actively" ;-)Pros:
  - Designed for meta-programming
  - Extensible (you can add your own notations [sourceforge.net] with compiler plug-ins)
  - No forced placement of { and } (largely because you don't need them)
  - Probably the first language where you could redefine a Pascal-like WriteLn [sourceforge.net] (way back in 2000 or so)
  - The XL compiler is written in XL (the Go compiler isn't written in Go)
  - Expression reduction, a generalized form of operator overloading [sourceforge.net], e.g.
define expression A+B*C=0 when A, B and C are matrices
  - True generic types, e.g.
a way to use "array" as a type to denote code that doesn't care about element type or size [sourceforge.net]
  - Generic validation, i.e.
detect in the specification whether it's OK to use a given generic type [sourceforge.net], e.g.
maximum only works if you have an order relation.
  - Generates C or Java (work currently in progress for generating machine code on the fly using LLVM)
  - No parser-injected semi-colons.
What were they thinking?
  - OTOH, the new-line that separates statements is an infix operator (and so is the semi-colon).
Now, that is cool.
  - Very simple base syntax, implemented within less than 1000 lines of code [sourceforge.net]Cons:
  - Not backed by Google or any large company
  - Never went much beyond the "amusing exercise in compiler technology" stage, i.e.
not used for any real stuffDisclaimer: I invented and implemented that language, which means that you are probably biased :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31326010</id>
	<title>Re:already invented?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267460880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To answer your question about the last one:</p><p>(require 'chanl)<br>(in-package 'chanl)</p><p>(defparameter *channel* (make-instance 'channel))</p><p>(pexec () (loop (send *channel* "success")))<br>(pexec () (loop (print (recv *channel*)))</p><p>Run on Clozure Common Lisp, that code will run on Windows, OSX, and Linux. Run it on ECL and it'll probably work on even more platforms. And you know what? That's a library. If you just want to call it "go" because pexec makes you pee your pants:</p><p>(defmacro go (&amp;body body) `(pexec ()<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,@body))</p><p>!next</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To answer your question about the last one : ( require 'chanl ) ( in-package 'chanl ) ( defparameter * channel * ( make-instance 'channel ) ) ( pexec ( ) ( loop ( send * channel * " success " ) ) ) ( pexec ( ) ( loop ( print ( recv * channel * ) ) ) Run on Clozure Common Lisp , that code will run on Windows , OSX , and Linux .
Run it on ECL and it 'll probably work on even more platforms .
And you know what ?
That 's a library .
If you just want to call it " go " because pexec makes you pee your pants : ( defmacro go ( &amp;body body ) ` ( pexec ( ) , @ body ) ) ! next</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To answer your question about the last one:(require 'chanl)(in-package 'chanl)(defparameter *channel* (make-instance 'channel))(pexec () (loop (send *channel* "success")))(pexec () (loop (print (recv *channel*)))Run on Clozure Common Lisp, that code will run on Windows, OSX, and Linux.
Run it on ECL and it'll probably work on even more platforms.
And you know what?
That's a library.
If you just want to call it "go" because pexec makes you pee your pants:(defmacro go (&amp;body body) `(pexec () ,@body))!next</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317116</id>
	<title>What innovation?</title>
	<author>piranha(jpl)</author>
	<datestamp>1267462740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, what has Go brought to the table?</p><blockquote><div><p>Go is designed with internal messaging capabilities, intended to simplify the creation of applications running on different nodes, and improve their performance.</p><p>"It's a way to try to address how to write concurrent software that's more robust, as opposed to using the old threading model of Java and others," Voss said.</p><p>...</p><p>In this regard, Go offers "a new programming paradigm" that makes it easier to solve a wide variety of programming problems by simplifying many types of parallel processing.</p></div> </blockquote><p>No, Go doesn't bring anything new to the concurrency table.  The two things I've seen about Go concurrency that are regarded as special are M:N/"green" threads and CSP-style channels.</p><p>M:N threading is an implementation detail of a language <em>runtime</em>.  Whereas the standard library of a language might specify how threads are available to client applications (programs written in the language), it's best left to the implementation (runtime or compiler) to decide <em>how</em> to translate those threads onto the machine.  Some implementations might want to focus on scalable, high-performance threading, and so they'd choose M:N.  Some others might emphasize simplicity, and map language threads directly to OS threads.  What Go has done is standardized this <em>implementation detail</em> into the language specification.  (I don't think that's a good idea, but that's a matter of taste.)  Other language implementations offer M:N threading, including GHC and (I think) Erlang.</p><p>On channels: they're cool.  I love them.  But there's a lot of prior art here, and many languages have great CSP-style channel libraries written for them that offer the same great flavor of relatively safe message passing and alternation between sets of channels:</p><ul>
<li> <a href="http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/projects/ofa/jcsp/" title="kent.ac.uk">Communicating Sequential Processes for Java (JCSP)</a> [kent.ac.uk] </li><li> <a href="http://www.cppcsp.net/" title="cppcsp.net">C++CSP2</a> [cppcsp.net] </li><li> <a href="http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/projects/ofa/chp/" title="kent.ac.uk">CHP: Communicating Haskell Processes</a> [kent.ac.uk] </li><li> <a href="http://code.google.com/p/python-csp/" title="google.com">python-csp</a> [google.com] </li><li> <a href="http://man.cat-v.org/p9p/3/thread" title="cat-v.org">Plan 9 libthread</a> [cat-v.org] for C (and not just Plan 9, thanks to plan9port)</li><li>and my own: <a href="http://www.thoughtcrime.us/software/calispel/" title="thoughtcrime.us">Calispel</a> [thoughtcrime.us] for Common Lisp</li></ul><p>In summary, I just don't get what the buzz with Go is about, besides that it's Google's very own language.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , what has Go brought to the table ? Go is designed with internal messaging capabilities , intended to simplify the creation of applications running on different nodes , and improve their performance .
" It 's a way to try to address how to write concurrent software that 's more robust , as opposed to using the old threading model of Java and others , " Voss said....In this regard , Go offers " a new programming paradigm " that makes it easier to solve a wide variety of programming problems by simplifying many types of parallel processing .
No , Go does n't bring anything new to the concurrency table .
The two things I 've seen about Go concurrency that are regarded as special are M : N/ " green " threads and CSP-style channels.M : N threading is an implementation detail of a language runtime .
Whereas the standard library of a language might specify how threads are available to client applications ( programs written in the language ) , it 's best left to the implementation ( runtime or compiler ) to decide how to translate those threads onto the machine .
Some implementations might want to focus on scalable , high-performance threading , and so they 'd choose M : N. Some others might emphasize simplicity , and map language threads directly to OS threads .
What Go has done is standardized this implementation detail into the language specification .
( I do n't think that 's a good idea , but that 's a matter of taste .
) Other language implementations offer M : N threading , including GHC and ( I think ) Erlang.On channels : they 're cool .
I love them .
But there 's a lot of prior art here , and many languages have great CSP-style channel libraries written for them that offer the same great flavor of relatively safe message passing and alternation between sets of channels : Communicating Sequential Processes for Java ( JCSP ) [ kent.ac.uk ] C + + CSP2 [ cppcsp.net ] CHP : Communicating Haskell Processes [ kent.ac.uk ] python-csp [ google.com ] Plan 9 libthread [ cat-v.org ] for C ( and not just Plan 9 , thanks to plan9port ) and my own : Calispel [ thoughtcrime.us ] for Common LispIn summary , I just do n't get what the buzz with Go is about , besides that it 's Google 's very own language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, what has Go brought to the table?Go is designed with internal messaging capabilities, intended to simplify the creation of applications running on different nodes, and improve their performance.
"It's a way to try to address how to write concurrent software that's more robust, as opposed to using the old threading model of Java and others," Voss said....In this regard, Go offers "a new programming paradigm" that makes it easier to solve a wide variety of programming problems by simplifying many types of parallel processing.
No, Go doesn't bring anything new to the concurrency table.
The two things I've seen about Go concurrency that are regarded as special are M:N/"green" threads and CSP-style channels.M:N threading is an implementation detail of a language runtime.
Whereas the standard library of a language might specify how threads are available to client applications (programs written in the language), it's best left to the implementation (runtime or compiler) to decide how to translate those threads onto the machine.
Some implementations might want to focus on scalable, high-performance threading, and so they'd choose M:N.  Some others might emphasize simplicity, and map language threads directly to OS threads.
What Go has done is standardized this implementation detail into the language specification.
(I don't think that's a good idea, but that's a matter of taste.
)  Other language implementations offer M:N threading, including GHC and (I think) Erlang.On channels: they're cool.
I love them.
But there's a lot of prior art here, and many languages have great CSP-style channel libraries written for them that offer the same great flavor of relatively safe message passing and alternation between sets of channels:
 Communicating Sequential Processes for Java (JCSP) [kent.ac.uk]  C++CSP2 [cppcsp.net]  CHP: Communicating Haskell Processes [kent.ac.uk]  python-csp [google.com]  Plan 9 libthread [cat-v.org] for C (and not just Plan 9, thanks to plan9port)and my own: Calispel [thoughtcrime.us] for Common LispIn summary, I just don't get what the buzz with Go is about, besides that it's Google's very own language.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319728</id>
	<title>Re:already invented?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267472520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Speaking of a usable, platform independent method of concurrent programming, you forgot <a href="http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ada\_Programming/Tasking" title="wikibooks.org" rel="nofollow">Ada</a> [wikibooks.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Speaking of a usable , platform independent method of concurrent programming , you forgot Ada [ wikibooks.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speaking of a usable, platform independent method of concurrent programming, you forgot Ada [wikibooks.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317364</id>
	<title>No multi-dimensional arrays</title>
	<author>halfdan the black</author>
	<datestamp>1267463580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Go looks nice, but it still does not have real multi-dimensional arrays. This is the key issue that keeps me using Fortran.

<br> <br>

WTF don't any C derived languages have real multi-dimensional arrays? Yes, I know you can fake it with array of pointers to pointers, i.e. foo[i][j], but the problem is even if you allocate a contiguous block, and have your pointer array index into it, it still requires at least two memory accesses to access an element, which absolutely kills performance. And I just freaking hate doing foo[i * ROWS + j], its nasty and error prone. So, why has Fortran had multi-dimensional arrays since freaking 1960, and still no C derived languages have it.

<br> <br>
BTW, native complex number vector operations would be nice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go looks nice , but it still does not have real multi-dimensional arrays .
This is the key issue that keeps me using Fortran .
WTF do n't any C derived languages have real multi-dimensional arrays ?
Yes , I know you can fake it with array of pointers to pointers , i.e .
foo [ i ] [ j ] , but the problem is even if you allocate a contiguous block , and have your pointer array index into it , it still requires at least two memory accesses to access an element , which absolutely kills performance .
And I just freaking hate doing foo [ i * ROWS + j ] , its nasty and error prone .
So , why has Fortran had multi-dimensional arrays since freaking 1960 , and still no C derived languages have it .
BTW , native complex number vector operations would be nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go looks nice, but it still does not have real multi-dimensional arrays.
This is the key issue that keeps me using Fortran.
WTF don't any C derived languages have real multi-dimensional arrays?
Yes, I know you can fake it with array of pointers to pointers, i.e.
foo[i][j], but the problem is even if you allocate a contiguous block, and have your pointer array index into it, it still requires at least two memory accesses to access an element, which absolutely kills performance.
And I just freaking hate doing foo[i * ROWS + j], its nasty and error prone.
So, why has Fortran had multi-dimensional arrays since freaking 1960, and still no C derived languages have it.
BTW, native complex number vector operations would be nice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318160</id>
	<title>Re:who's using it?</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1267466520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"C# is considered easier than Java?"</p><p>Well, at least by me. You don't have to deal with checked exceptions or use adapters for (some) event handling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" C # is considered easier than Java ?
" Well , at least by me .
You do n't have to deal with checked exceptions or use adapters for ( some ) event handling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"C# is considered easier than Java?
"Well, at least by me.
You don't have to deal with checked exceptions or use adapters for (some) event handling.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318436</id>
	<title>Nirvana Quest</title>
	<author>strangeattraction</author>
	<datestamp>1267467480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was one of those developers chafing at the bid to get my hands on Go. Once I started I never looked backed. I was able to write my own version of HelloWorld in half (that is 1/2) the time it took me to do it in C and it was bug Free with no memory leaks. I think that pretty  says it all. If you're looking for a programming language that solves all your coding problems look no further. Now that I have abandoned Java my manually linking programs with xml skills have declined sharply. Similarly after abandoning Lisp my ability to match parenthesis's has almost vanished. No matter, with Go I perceive the universe in my belly button.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was one of those developers chafing at the bid to get my hands on Go .
Once I started I never looked backed .
I was able to write my own version of HelloWorld in half ( that is 1/2 ) the time it took me to do it in C and it was bug Free with no memory leaks .
I think that pretty says it all .
If you 're looking for a programming language that solves all your coding problems look no further .
Now that I have abandoned Java my manually linking programs with xml skills have declined sharply .
Similarly after abandoning Lisp my ability to match parenthesis 's has almost vanished .
No matter , with Go I perceive the universe in my belly button .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was one of those developers chafing at the bid to get my hands on Go.
Once I started I never looked backed.
I was able to write my own version of HelloWorld in half (that is 1/2) the time it took me to do it in C and it was bug Free with no memory leaks.
I think that pretty  says it all.
If you're looking for a programming language that solves all your coding problems look no further.
Now that I have abandoned Java my manually linking programs with xml skills have declined sharply.
Similarly after abandoning Lisp my ability to match parenthesis's has almost vanished.
No matter, with Go I perceive the universe in my belly button.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31321828</id>
	<title>Re:What innovation?</title>
	<author>5pp000</author>
	<datestamp>1267437180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I just don't get what the buzz with Go is about, besides that it's Google's very own language.</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't get it either.  It certainly doesn't have anything to make me want to switch from Common Lisp.

</p><p>Calispel looks interesting... I may have a use for it.  Thanks for posting!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just do n't get what the buzz with Go is about , besides that it 's Google 's very own language.I do n't get it either .
It certainly does n't have anything to make me want to switch from Common Lisp .
Calispel looks interesting... I may have a use for it .
Thanks for posting !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just don't get what the buzz with Go is about, besides that it's Google's very own language.I don't get it either.
It certainly doesn't have anything to make me want to switch from Common Lisp.
Calispel looks interesting... I may have a use for it.
Thanks for posting!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317390</id>
	<title>Re:Alternatives?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267463700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>erlang has parallelism much more in the core of the language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>erlang has parallelism much more in the core of the language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>erlang has parallelism much more in the core of the language.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318272</id>
	<title>Boycott Google</title>
	<author>nawitus</author>
	<datestamp>1267466880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google makes very good products, but they don't take privacy seriously at all. Even if they did, I'm not going to use any more products by Google (and I'm soon transfering out of Gmail). The reason is that Google is just growing to be too big, it's not even funny anymore. Soon they know everything and have huge corporate power. And it's a corporation after all. Their main goal is profit, not acting morally.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google makes very good products , but they do n't take privacy seriously at all .
Even if they did , I 'm not going to use any more products by Google ( and I 'm soon transfering out of Gmail ) .
The reason is that Google is just growing to be too big , it 's not even funny anymore .
Soon they know everything and have huge corporate power .
And it 's a corporation after all .
Their main goal is profit , not acting morally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google makes very good products, but they don't take privacy seriously at all.
Even if they did, I'm not going to use any more products by Google (and I'm soon transfering out of Gmail).
The reason is that Google is just growing to be too big, it's not even funny anymore.
Soon they know everything and have huge corporate power.
And it's a corporation after all.
Their main goal is profit, not acting morally.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319292</id>
	<title>Re:Eh?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267471020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There is no one tool fit for every job.</p></div><p>Sure there is.  It's a computer.  Everything else is implementation details.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no one tool fit for every job.Sure there is .
It 's a computer .
Everything else is implementation details .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no one tool fit for every job.Sure there is.
It's a computer.
Everything else is implementation details.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317802</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318220</id>
	<title>nice try, google</title>
	<author>Sterculius</author>
	<datestamp>1267466700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I looked into it.  It is still basically unusable for any real-world app, as far as I can tell.  I would say that its chances of taking over are probably about the same as Sarah Palin being elected President, or finding sentient life on Mars.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I looked into it .
It is still basically unusable for any real-world app , as far as I can tell .
I would say that its chances of taking over are probably about the same as Sarah Palin being elected President , or finding sentient life on Mars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I looked into it.
It is still basically unusable for any real-world app, as far as I can tell.
I would say that its chances of taking over are probably about the same as Sarah Palin being elected President, or finding sentient life on Mars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318642</id>
	<title>Re:who's using it?</title>
	<author>IICV</author>
	<datestamp>1267468200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wooosh.</p><p>It's not about which language is <i>actually</i> easier, it's about which language is currently in the limelight. Presumably this guy started using C when FORTRAN was too hard, FORTRAN when raw assembly was too hard, assembly when punched cards were too hard, and punched cards when talking to a group of forty <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human\_computer" title="wikipedia.org">computers</a> [wikipedia.org] was too hard.</p><p>Personally, I find Ruby to be by far the most confusing of all these languages, and C# with Linq to be more sensible than Java. Mmm, sweet delicious nearly first-class functions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wooosh.It 's not about which language is actually easier , it 's about which language is currently in the limelight .
Presumably this guy started using C when FORTRAN was too hard , FORTRAN when raw assembly was too hard , assembly when punched cards were too hard , and punched cards when talking to a group of forty computers [ wikipedia.org ] was too hard.Personally , I find Ruby to be by far the most confusing of all these languages , and C # with Linq to be more sensible than Java .
Mmm , sweet delicious nearly first-class functions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wooosh.It's not about which language is actually easier, it's about which language is currently in the limelight.
Presumably this guy started using C when FORTRAN was too hard, FORTRAN when raw assembly was too hard, assembly when punched cards were too hard, and punched cards when talking to a group of forty computers [wikipedia.org] was too hard.Personally, I find Ruby to be by far the most confusing of all these languages, and C# with Linq to be more sensible than Java.
Mmm, sweet delicious nearly first-class functions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316626</id>
	<title>Go fuck yourself</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267460940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are enough programming languages already.</p><p>How about implementing a nice C# API for whatever functionality you are re-inventing the wheel for this week?</p><p>Stick with over-simplistic search and buggy, not-ready-for-primetime cell phones, Google.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are enough programming languages already.How about implementing a nice C # API for whatever functionality you are re-inventing the wheel for this week ? Stick with over-simplistic search and buggy , not-ready-for-primetime cell phones , Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are enough programming languages already.How about implementing a nice C# API for whatever functionality you are re-inventing the wheel for this week?Stick with over-simplistic search and buggy, not-ready-for-primetime cell phones, Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31320530</id>
	<title>Re:What innovation?</title>
	<author>ajs</author>
	<datestamp>1267475700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're making a very old argument. One that was made by C purists when C++ was introduced: that simply adding syntax for something doesn't make your language special. C++ users disagreed and many defected from the C camp. Were they right? Possibly.</p><p>Of course, the smalltalk users were also right: these were not new features. C++ was just applying previously developed tools to the C language.</p><p>None of that mattered in the long term.</p><p>Is Go the new C++? I have no idea, but I don't think you're taking an objective, historical view, here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're making a very old argument .
One that was made by C purists when C + + was introduced : that simply adding syntax for something does n't make your language special .
C + + users disagreed and many defected from the C camp .
Were they right ?
Possibly.Of course , the smalltalk users were also right : these were not new features .
C + + was just applying previously developed tools to the C language.None of that mattered in the long term.Is Go the new C + + ?
I have no idea , but I do n't think you 're taking an objective , historical view , here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're making a very old argument.
One that was made by C purists when C++ was introduced: that simply adding syntax for something doesn't make your language special.
C++ users disagreed and many defected from the C camp.
Were they right?
Possibly.Of course, the smalltalk users were also right: these were not new features.
C++ was just applying previously developed tools to the C language.None of that mattered in the long term.Is Go the new C++?
I have no idea, but I don't think you're taking an objective, historical view, here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31321048</id>
	<title>Re:who's using it?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1267434540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you restrict yourself to a subset of a language, maybe.</p><p>Otherwise, C# users have to deal with:</p><p>- user-defined value types<br>- first-class functions<br>- type inference (did you ever read the spec on how it works for arguments of generic methods when lambdas are involved?..)<br>- unsigned integral types (and mixed arithmetic issues that arise)<br>- native pointer types and pointer arithmetic<br>- operator overloading<br>- pass-by-reference</p><p>just to name a few.</p><p>This isn't to say it's a bad thing. All of the above give you more power. Furthermore, one could say that many of those features "just work" in a sense that programmer doesn't typically need to understand how type inference works, for example. But then sometimes they <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2007/03/26/lambda-expressions-vs-anonymous-methods-part-four.aspx" title="msdn.com">do</a> [msdn.com] <a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2007/03/28/lambda-expressions-vs-anonymous-methods-part-five.aspx" title="msdn.com">not</a> [msdn.com], and relying on magic without understanding how it works can land you straight into "here be dragons" land.</p><p>All in all, I'd say that it's pretty clear that Java is a simpler language than C# - a cursory glance at language specs of each is enough to conclude that. Whether that simplicity helps ease of use, or hinders it, is a different question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you restrict yourself to a subset of a language , maybe.Otherwise , C # users have to deal with : - user-defined value types- first-class functions- type inference ( did you ever read the spec on how it works for arguments of generic methods when lambdas are involved ? . .
) - unsigned integral types ( and mixed arithmetic issues that arise ) - native pointer types and pointer arithmetic- operator overloading- pass-by-referencejust to name a few.This is n't to say it 's a bad thing .
All of the above give you more power .
Furthermore , one could say that many of those features " just work " in a sense that programmer does n't typically need to understand how type inference works , for example .
But then sometimes they do [ msdn.com ] not [ msdn.com ] , and relying on magic without understanding how it works can land you straight into " here be dragons " land.All in all , I 'd say that it 's pretty clear that Java is a simpler language than C # - a cursory glance at language specs of each is enough to conclude that .
Whether that simplicity helps ease of use , or hinders it , is a different question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you restrict yourself to a subset of a language, maybe.Otherwise, C# users have to deal with:- user-defined value types- first-class functions- type inference (did you ever read the spec on how it works for arguments of generic methods when lambdas are involved?..
)- unsigned integral types (and mixed arithmetic issues that arise)- native pointer types and pointer arithmetic- operator overloading- pass-by-referencejust to name a few.This isn't to say it's a bad thing.
All of the above give you more power.
Furthermore, one could say that many of those features "just work" in a sense that programmer doesn't typically need to understand how type inference works, for example.
But then sometimes they do [msdn.com] not [msdn.com], and relying on magic without understanding how it works can land you straight into "here be dragons" land.All in all, I'd say that it's pretty clear that Java is a simpler language than C# - a cursory glance at language specs of each is enough to conclude that.
Whether that simplicity helps ease of use, or hinders it, is a different question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318160</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318098</id>
	<title>Re:No multi-dimensional arrays</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1267466340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>WTF don't any C derived languages have real multi-dimensional arrays?</p> </div><p>C# (and CTS) has them:</p><blockquote><div><p> <tt>float[,] a = new float[2, 3];<br>a[0, 0] = 1;</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>but performance in all present-day implementations sucks compared to vectors.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF do n't any C derived languages have real multi-dimensional arrays ?
C # ( and CTS ) has them : float [ , ] a = new float [ 2 , 3 ] ; a [ 0 , 0 ] = 1 ; but performance in all present-day implementations sucks compared to vectors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF don't any C derived languages have real multi-dimensional arrays?
C# (and CTS) has them: float[,] a = new float[2, 3];a[0, 0] = 1; but performance in all present-day implementations sucks compared to vectors.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319282</id>
	<title>Re:already invented?</title>
	<author>Waffle Iron</author>
	<datestamp>1267470960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go certainly makes concurrent programming easy, but I think that they suffer from the same problem as many languages that came before it. They focus on whatever happens the current hot topic of the day (in Go's case concurrency, class inheritance in the case of Java, string manipulation for Perl, etc), and they put in a bunch of funky syntax to support it.</p><p>As time goes by, other hot topics come and go, but the language remains stuck near where it started. It will have great support for this one thing, but will end up with clumsy kludges for newer things. In the case of Go, the concurrency syntax is so specialized, I don't think that they have planned out any way to elegantly extend the language in the future.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go certainly makes concurrent programming easy , but I think that they suffer from the same problem as many languages that came before it .
They focus on whatever happens the current hot topic of the day ( in Go 's case concurrency , class inheritance in the case of Java , string manipulation for Perl , etc ) , and they put in a bunch of funky syntax to support it.As time goes by , other hot topics come and go , but the language remains stuck near where it started .
It will have great support for this one thing , but will end up with clumsy kludges for newer things .
In the case of Go , the concurrency syntax is so specialized , I do n't think that they have planned out any way to elegantly extend the language in the future .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go certainly makes concurrent programming easy, but I think that they suffer from the same problem as many languages that came before it.
They focus on whatever happens the current hot topic of the day (in Go's case concurrency, class inheritance in the case of Java, string manipulation for Perl, etc), and they put in a bunch of funky syntax to support it.As time goes by, other hot topics come and go, but the language remains stuck near where it started.
It will have great support for this one thing, but will end up with clumsy kludges for newer things.
In the case of Go, the concurrency syntax is so specialized, I don't think that they have planned out any way to elegantly extend the language in the future.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319574</id>
	<title>Re:Whitespace</title>
	<author>TheSync</author>
	<datestamp>1267471920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I was the biggest significant whitespace disbeliever until I had to write a lot of Python.  I'm sold now!!!  It is awesome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was the biggest significant whitespace disbeliever until I had to write a lot of Python .
I 'm sold now ! ! !
It is awesome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was the biggest significant whitespace disbeliever until I had to write a lot of Python.
I'm sold now!!!
It is awesome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317448</id>
	<title>Another stagnant programming language</title>
	<author>lwriemen</author>
	<datestamp>1267463940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The programming community has been stuck at 3GL for way too long.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The programming community has been stuck at 3GL for way too long .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The programming community has been stuck at 3GL for way too long.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318200</id>
	<title>Re:If I google go...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267466640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ironically, if you use Bing, google.com comes before any references for either the game or the programming language.  No mention of the language on the first page though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ironically , if you use Bing , google.com comes before any references for either the game or the programming language .
No mention of the language on the first page though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ironically, if you use Bing, google.com comes before any references for either the game or the programming language.
No mention of the language on the first page though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317236</id>
	<title>What is Go?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267463100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is Go?</p><p>Does that answer your question?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is Go ? Does that answer your question ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is Go?Does that answer your question?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317806</id>
	<title>Re:Alternatives?</title>
	<author>Coryoth</author>
	<datestamp>1267465380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can't give opinions on all of these (and some are still in development at this time anyway), but here's a list of some languages with paralellism designed in:</p><ul><li> <a href="http://ftp.sunet.se/pub/lang/erlang/" title="sunet.se">Erlang</a> [sunet.se] -- Very popular message passing/actor model based language.</li><li> <a href="http://www.scala-lang.org/" title="scala-lang.org">Scala</a> [scala-lang.org] -- A functional language with actor model concurrency for the JVM.</li><li> <a href="http://www.mozart-oz.org/" title="mozart-oz.org">Oz</a> [mozart-oz.org] -- An exceptionally multiparadigm language.</li><li> <a href="http://pop-users.org/wiki/occam-pi" title="pop-users.org">Occam-pi</a> [pop-users.org] -- The modern version of the old occam for transputers; CSP style concurrency (I believe).</li><li> <a href="http://chapel.cray.com/" title="cray.com">Chapel</a> [cray.com] -- Cray's parallel programming language for supercompters. Cray's entry into DARPA's HPCS programming language competition.</li><li> <a href="http://x10.codehaus.org/" title="codehaus.org">X10</a> [codehaus.org] </li><li> <a href="http://research.sun.com/projects/plrg/" title="sun.com">Fortress</a> [sun.com] -- Sun's language for serious scientific computing. It was Sun's entry into DARPA's HPCS programming language competition, but lost and is now open sourced.</li><li> <a href="http://scoop.origo.ethz.ch/" title="origo.ethz.ch">Eiffel SCOOP</a> [origo.ethz.ch] -- An effort to take a CSP model and make it elegantly compatible with object oriented programming</li></ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't give opinions on all of these ( and some are still in development at this time anyway ) , but here 's a list of some languages with paralellism designed in : Erlang [ sunet.se ] -- Very popular message passing/actor model based language .
Scala [ scala-lang.org ] -- A functional language with actor model concurrency for the JVM .
Oz [ mozart-oz.org ] -- An exceptionally multiparadigm language .
Occam-pi [ pop-users.org ] -- The modern version of the old occam for transputers ; CSP style concurrency ( I believe ) .
Chapel [ cray.com ] -- Cray 's parallel programming language for supercompters .
Cray 's entry into DARPA 's HPCS programming language competition .
X10 [ codehaus.org ] Fortress [ sun.com ] -- Sun 's language for serious scientific computing .
It was Sun 's entry into DARPA 's HPCS programming language competition , but lost and is now open sourced .
Eiffel SCOOP [ origo.ethz.ch ] -- An effort to take a CSP model and make it elegantly compatible with object oriented programming</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't give opinions on all of these (and some are still in development at this time anyway), but here's a list of some languages with paralellism designed in: Erlang [sunet.se] -- Very popular message passing/actor model based language.
Scala [scala-lang.org] -- A functional language with actor model concurrency for the JVM.
Oz [mozart-oz.org] -- An exceptionally multiparadigm language.
Occam-pi [pop-users.org] -- The modern version of the old occam for transputers; CSP style concurrency (I believe).
Chapel [cray.com] -- Cray's parallel programming language for supercompters.
Cray's entry into DARPA's HPCS programming language competition.
X10 [codehaus.org]  Fortress [sun.com] -- Sun's language for serious scientific computing.
It was Sun's entry into DARPA's HPCS programming language competition, but lost and is now open sourced.
Eiffel SCOOP [origo.ethz.ch] -- An effort to take a CSP model and make it elegantly compatible with object oriented programming</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318268</id>
	<title>Re:Bright future to go.</title>
	<author>lokpest</author>
	<datestamp>1267466880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I am expecting Go to stay and prosper.</p></div><p>So, what you're saying is that you dont think it will <i>Go</i> away?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am expecting Go to stay and prosper.So , what you 're saying is that you dont think it will Go away ?
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am expecting Go to stay and prosper.So, what you're saying is that you dont think it will Go away?
;)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319330</id>
	<title>Re:Whitespace</title>
	<author>TheCouchPotatoFamine</author>
	<datestamp>1267471140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I love significant whitespace because it stops people with your mindset from making up their own spacing regime for every program they write. see my signature.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I love significant whitespace because it stops people with your mindset from making up their own spacing regime for every program they write .
see my signature .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I love significant whitespace because it stops people with your mindset from making up their own spacing regime for every program they write.
see my signature.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317744</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31320366</id>
	<title>Let me just ask....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267475040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who the fuck is John Gordon?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who the fuck is John Gordon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who the fuck is John Gordon?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317362</id>
	<title>sad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267463580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Google's Go is a sad sad excuse for a modern programming language -- puh leaze.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Google 's Go is a sad sad excuse for a modern programming language -- puh leaze .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google's Go is a sad sad excuse for a modern programming language -- puh leaze.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31331100</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1267551000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>He's talking about Java.  Does Java have a KeyPressed event?</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's talking about Java .
Does Java have a KeyPressed event ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's talking about Java.
Does Java have a KeyPressed event?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317320</id>
	<title>Re:who's using it?</title>
	<author>Tumbleweed</author>
	<datestamp>1267463460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"C++ is too hard, I'll use java. java is too hard, I'll use C#. C# is too hard, I'll use python. Python is too hard (boner?), I'll use ruby. ruby is too hard, I'll use Go." -- GoFanBoy (formerly RubyFanBoy, formerly PythonFanBoy, formerly<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...)</i></p><p>Ruby is considered easier than Python? C# is considered easier than Java?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" C + + is too hard , I 'll use java .
java is too hard , I 'll use C # .
C # is too hard , I 'll use python .
Python is too hard ( boner ?
) , I 'll use ruby .
ruby is too hard , I 'll use Go .
" -- GoFanBoy ( formerly RubyFanBoy , formerly PythonFanBoy , formerly ... ) Ruby is considered easier than Python ?
C # is considered easier than Java ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"C++ is too hard, I'll use java.
java is too hard, I'll use C#.
C# is too hard, I'll use python.
Python is too hard (boner?
), I'll use ruby.
ruby is too hard, I'll use Go.
" -- GoFanBoy (formerly RubyFanBoy, formerly PythonFanBoy, formerly ...)Ruby is considered easier than Python?
C# is considered easier than Java?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316932</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318682</id>
	<title>Re:who's using it?</title>
	<author>Blakey Rat</author>
	<datestamp>1267468380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>C# is easier than Java, if only because it has a kick-ass IDE in Visual Studio and high-quality well-documented libraries.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>C # is easier than Java , if only because it has a kick-ass IDE in Visual Studio and high-quality well-documented libraries .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C# is easier than Java, if only because it has a kick-ass IDE in Visual Studio and high-quality well-documented libraries.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31324866</id>
	<title>Re:Nirvana Quest</title>
	<author>LMacG</author>
	<datestamp>1267451340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, and I'm champing at the bit to correct another mangled idiom.  And don't even get me started on forming plurals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , and I 'm champing at the bit to correct another mangled idiom .
And do n't even get me started on forming plurals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, and I'm champing at the bit to correct another mangled idiom.
And don't even get me started on forming plurals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318436</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318270</id>
	<title>Line Numbers?</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1267466880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What's with the line numbers?  I thought we buried those in the same unmarked grave as disco and rotary dial phones.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What 's with the line numbers ?
I thought we buried those in the same unmarked grave as disco and rotary dial phones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What's with the line numbers?
I thought we buried those in the same unmarked grave as disco and rotary dial phones.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317342</id>
	<title>Re:Alternatives?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267463520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FORTRAN. Pros: Faster. Cons: Everything else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FORTRAN .
Pros : Faster .
Cons : Everything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FORTRAN.
Pros: Faster.
Cons: Everything else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317080</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31325958</id>
	<title>Re:What innovation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267460340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure Rob Pike is more aware of this fact than you are.</p><p>To add to your list, though: PLT Scheme, Stackless Python, Concurrent Haskell...</p><p>Go's object system (or lack thereof) is interesting for other reasons, though. See http://bywicket.com/users/mikel/weblog/126a4/ and any of the posts having to do with Categories. It could still probably be made better with inheritance, though. Not that Go's idea is original, but it's interesting to see that there's a language that the plebs consider interesting that actually uses good ideas. Kinda like how JavaScript is a piece of shit, but has given significante exposure to prototype-based programming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure Rob Pike is more aware of this fact than you are.To add to your list , though : PLT Scheme , Stackless Python , Concurrent Haskell...Go 's object system ( or lack thereof ) is interesting for other reasons , though .
See http : //bywicket.com/users/mikel/weblog/126a4/ and any of the posts having to do with Categories .
It could still probably be made better with inheritance , though .
Not that Go 's idea is original , but it 's interesting to see that there 's a language that the plebs consider interesting that actually uses good ideas .
Kinda like how JavaScript is a piece of shit , but has given significante exposure to prototype-based programming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure Rob Pike is more aware of this fact than you are.To add to your list, though: PLT Scheme, Stackless Python, Concurrent Haskell...Go's object system (or lack thereof) is interesting for other reasons, though.
See http://bywicket.com/users/mikel/weblog/126a4/ and any of the posts having to do with Categories.
It could still probably be made better with inheritance, though.
Not that Go's idea is original, but it's interesting to see that there's a language that the plebs consider interesting that actually uses good ideas.
Kinda like how JavaScript is a piece of shit, but has given significante exposure to prototype-based programming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318758</id>
	<title>Re:Oh yeah, that ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267468680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I, like many, looked into this language and read about many of its features until I found that it was a useless toy language as it had no implementation on Windows. Also Google said that they didn't have the resources to make it available on Windows - which shows you the level of support/interest they actually have in making it a viable language.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I , like many , looked into this language and read about many of its features until I found that it was a useless toy language as it had no implementation on Windows .
Also Google said that they did n't have the resources to make it available on Windows - which shows you the level of support/interest they actually have in making it a viable language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I, like many, looked into this language and read about many of its features until I found that it was a useless toy language as it had no implementation on Windows.
Also Google said that they didn't have the resources to make it available on Windows - which shows you the level of support/interest they actually have in making it a viable language.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316666</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31322340</id>
	<title>Re:already invented?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267439100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ever heard of SR? http://www.cs.arizona.edu/sr/.</p><p>It, too, claimed to be a system programming language with easy concurrent programming. Didn't catch, for some reasons.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ever heard of SR ?
http : //www.cs.arizona.edu/sr/.It , too , claimed to be a system programming language with easy concurrent programming .
Did n't catch , for some reasons .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ever heard of SR?
http://www.cs.arizona.edu/sr/.It, too, claimed to be a system programming language with easy concurrent programming.
Didn't catch, for some reasons.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316822</id>
	<title>Bad infomercial</title>
	<author>captaindomon</author>
	<datestamp>1267461660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>This summary reads like a bad infomercial. "How likely is it to really take over?" not likely at all, and nobody would ask that question unless they worked for Google Marketing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This summary reads like a bad infomercial .
" How likely is it to really take over ?
" not likely at all , and nobody would ask that question unless they worked for Google Marketing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This summary reads like a bad infomercial.
"How likely is it to really take over?
" not likely at all, and nobody would ask that question unless they worked for Google Marketing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31320450</id>
	<title>Go innovates programming practice, not theory</title>
	<author>waTR</author>
	<datestamp>1267475400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Go is not meant to innovate programming theory. It's meant to innovate programming practice."</p><p>I have done a lot of reading about Golang and have followed the community since its launch. The people involved are great, and the language is extremely straight-forward. I would put it up against any other language as a first-learned programming language. Golang is a "patterns" based language -- like javascript. This makes it EXTREMELY flexible. It is, however, very different from non-pattern based languages, such as C/C++, ruby, python, etc. Perhaps one of the reasons I have great appreciation for it is because I fell in love with javascript (the good parts), after watching the videos at: <a href="http://stackoverflow.com/questions/110371/what-javascript-tutorials-on-the-web-would-you-recommend/111177#111177" title="stackoverflow.com" rel="nofollow">http://stackoverflow.com/questions/110371/what-javascript-tutorials-on-the-web-would-you-recommend/111177#111177</a> [stackoverflow.com]</p><p>I see a lot of potential for this language. I have recently been really impressed by javascript, as a completely different approach to programming thanks to closures (I'm coming from C/C++ &amp; Python). I think golang is everything that made javascript a huge leap forward in programming methods back in the 90s, nothing that makes it bad, and add a great multi-threading layer on top of that.</p><p>While the libraries are still lacking, that says nothing about the language itself. Libraries come over time. Though, I must say that the base libraries that the language was launched with provide enough for people to do some great stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Go is not meant to innovate programming theory .
It 's meant to innovate programming practice .
" I have done a lot of reading about Golang and have followed the community since its launch .
The people involved are great , and the language is extremely straight-forward .
I would put it up against any other language as a first-learned programming language .
Golang is a " patterns " based language -- like javascript .
This makes it EXTREMELY flexible .
It is , however , very different from non-pattern based languages , such as C/C + + , ruby , python , etc .
Perhaps one of the reasons I have great appreciation for it is because I fell in love with javascript ( the good parts ) , after watching the videos at : http : //stackoverflow.com/questions/110371/what-javascript-tutorials-on-the-web-would-you-recommend/111177 # 111177 [ stackoverflow.com ] I see a lot of potential for this language .
I have recently been really impressed by javascript , as a completely different approach to programming thanks to closures ( I 'm coming from C/C + + &amp; Python ) .
I think golang is everything that made javascript a huge leap forward in programming methods back in the 90s , nothing that makes it bad , and add a great multi-threading layer on top of that.While the libraries are still lacking , that says nothing about the language itself .
Libraries come over time .
Though , I must say that the base libraries that the language was launched with provide enough for people to do some great stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Go is not meant to innovate programming theory.
It's meant to innovate programming practice.
"I have done a lot of reading about Golang and have followed the community since its launch.
The people involved are great, and the language is extremely straight-forward.
I would put it up against any other language as a first-learned programming language.
Golang is a "patterns" based language -- like javascript.
This makes it EXTREMELY flexible.
It is, however, very different from non-pattern based languages, such as C/C++, ruby, python, etc.
Perhaps one of the reasons I have great appreciation for it is because I fell in love with javascript (the good parts), after watching the videos at: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/110371/what-javascript-tutorials-on-the-web-would-you-recommend/111177#111177 [stackoverflow.com]I see a lot of potential for this language.
I have recently been really impressed by javascript, as a completely different approach to programming thanks to closures (I'm coming from C/C++ &amp; Python).
I think golang is everything that made javascript a huge leap forward in programming methods back in the 90s, nothing that makes it bad, and add a great multi-threading layer on top of that.While the libraries are still lacking, that says nothing about the language itself.
Libraries come over time.
Though, I must say that the base libraries that the language was launched with provide enough for people to do some great stuff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319048</id>
	<title>FAIL. Do not pass Go do not collect 200 dollars.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267469820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Recently I downloaded Go (redhat 4) but as far as I could get was a low level error when I tried to run<br>my first hello world program.  I noticed someone else had reported the exact same error to their newsgroup<br>several weeks prior - and not one person had responded with help.  I tried to diagnose the problem my self<br>as I really,really wanted to take a look at this language.  But alas, to me, it just wasn't worth the effort -<br>There are so many other new languages to explore that *do* work "out of the box" (scala, clojure, erlang,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....)<br>that I just concluded Go is not ready for prime time.  So I guess if Google offered me a dream job working<br>with Ken Thompson and Rob Pike to work on Go I would be sufficiently motivated to give another try. But<br>at this point I will wait for the first signs of a  Go based "Killer App" to look at it again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Recently I downloaded Go ( redhat 4 ) but as far as I could get was a low level error when I tried to runmy first hello world program .
I noticed someone else had reported the exact same error to their newsgroupseveral weeks prior - and not one person had responded with help .
I tried to diagnose the problem my selfas I really,really wanted to take a look at this language .
But alas , to me , it just was n't worth the effort -There are so many other new languages to explore that * do * work " out of the box " ( scala , clojure , erlang , .... ) that I just concluded Go is not ready for prime time .
So I guess if Google offered me a dream job workingwith Ken Thompson and Rob Pike to work on Go I would be sufficiently motivated to give another try .
Butat this point I will wait for the first signs of a Go based " Killer App " to look at it again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Recently I downloaded Go (redhat 4) but as far as I could get was a low level error when I tried to runmy first hello world program.
I noticed someone else had reported the exact same error to their newsgroupseveral weeks prior - and not one person had responded with help.
I tried to diagnose the problem my selfas I really,really wanted to take a look at this language.
But alas, to me, it just wasn't worth the effort -There are so many other new languages to explore that *do* work "out of the box" (scala, clojure, erlang, ....)that I just concluded Go is not ready for prime time.
So I guess if Google offered me a dream job workingwith Ken Thompson and Rob Pike to work on Go I would be sufficiently motivated to give another try.
Butat this point I will wait for the first signs of a  Go based "Killer App" to look at it again.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319010</id>
	<title>Re:What innovation?</title>
	<author>Babylon Rocker</author>
	<datestamp>1267469700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam\_(programming\_language)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">occam</a> [wikipedia.org] is a concurrent programming language that builds on the Communicating Sequential Processes (CSP) process algebra,[1] and shares many of its features. It is named after William of Ockham of Occam's Razor fame.</htmltext>
<tokenext>occam [ wikipedia.org ] is a concurrent programming language that builds on the Communicating Sequential Processes ( CSP ) process algebra , [ 1 ] and shares many of its features .
It is named after William of Ockham of Occam 's Razor fame .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>occam [wikipedia.org] is a concurrent programming language that builds on the Communicating Sequential Processes (CSP) process algebra,[1] and shares many of its features.
It is named after William of Ockham of Occam's Razor fame.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318734</id>
	<title>I'm waiting for Goo...</title>
	<author>theMAGE</author>
	<datestamp>1267468560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or whatever they call Go++.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or whatever they call Go + + .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or whatever they call Go++.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31323884</id>
	<title>Re:who's using it?</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1267445640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>C# is considered easier than Java?</p></div><p>Clearly you've never done any J2EE programming.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>C # is considered easier than Java ? Clearly you 've never done any J2EE programming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>C# is considered easier than Java?Clearly you've never done any J2EE programming.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316812</id>
	<title>Bright future to go.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267461600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is an interesting concept for a low-level language and could be pretty important. And since the gccgo compiler has been accepted by the gcc steering committee (<a href="http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2010-01/msg00500.html" title="gnu.org">link</a> [gnu.org]), I am expecting Go to stay and prosper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is an interesting concept for a low-level language and could be pretty important .
And since the gccgo compiler has been accepted by the gcc steering committee ( link [ gnu.org ] ) , I am expecting Go to stay and prosper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is an interesting concept for a low-level language and could be pretty important.
And since the gccgo compiler has been accepted by the gcc steering committee (link [gnu.org]), I am expecting Go to stay and prosper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31323066</id>
	<title>Re:Bright future to go.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267441800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And since the gccgo compiler has been accepted by the gcc steering committee</p></div><p>Read the whole thread; it's pretty loosey goosey; it doesn't mean much to have been "accepted by the gcc steering committee."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And since the gccgo compiler has been accepted by the gcc steering committeeRead the whole thread ; it 's pretty loosey goosey ; it does n't mean much to have been " accepted by the gcc steering committee .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And since the gccgo compiler has been accepted by the gcc steering committeeRead the whole thread; it's pretty loosey goosey; it doesn't mean much to have been "accepted by the gcc steering committee.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318910</id>
	<title>Re:already invented?</title>
	<author>BuR4N</author>
	<datestamp>1267469280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>How do you make a concurrent process in</p></div><p>

You can use Intel Threading Building Blocks for example, but you \_should\_ muck around with threads, locks and their type of bugs (dead locks, race conditions etc) so you know whats happening under the hood.

<br> <br>http://www.threadingbuildingblocks.org/</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you make a concurrent process in You can use Intel Threading Building Blocks for example , but you \ _should \ _ muck around with threads , locks and their type of bugs ( dead locks , race conditions etc ) so you know whats happening under the hood .
http : //www.threadingbuildingblocks.org/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you make a concurrent process in

You can use Intel Threading Building Blocks for example, but you \_should\_ muck around with threads, locks and their type of bugs (dead locks, race conditions etc) so you know whats happening under the hood.
http://www.threadingbuildingblocks.org/
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31328880</id>
	<title>Re:</title>
	<author>clint999</author>
	<datestamp>1267540200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>yeah but they don't work, GIL.</b></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah but they do n't work , GIL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah but they don't work, GIL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318680</id>
	<title>Re:who's using it?</title>
	<author>mcvos</author>
	<datestamp>1267468380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Ruby is considered easier than Python?</p></div><p>It's certainly not harder. Ruby is about as easy as a procedural language can get (and it's somewhat functional too!). As long as you don't need multithreading, of course.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ruby is considered easier than Python ? It 's certainly not harder .
Ruby is about as easy as a procedural language can get ( and it 's somewhat functional too ! ) .
As long as you do n't need multithreading , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ruby is considered easier than Python?It's certainly not harder.
Ruby is about as easy as a procedural language can get (and it's somewhat functional too!).
As long as you don't need multithreading, of course.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31320414</id>
	<title>Re:Bad infomercial</title>
	<author>ajs</author>
	<datestamp>1267475220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This summary reads like a bad infomercial. "How likely is it to really take over?" not likely at all, and nobody would ask that question unless they worked for Google Marketing.</p></div><p>As with many other Google efforts, Go isn't managed exclusively by Google (much like Android). So your statement really doesn't make much sense. There are many people who do feel that Go is the correct logical step from many existing languages. I'm on the fence, but as a disinterested observer, I think its reasonable to say that the community of folks who are anticipating that future are largely not Google employees.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This summary reads like a bad infomercial .
" How likely is it to really take over ?
" not likely at all , and nobody would ask that question unless they worked for Google Marketing.As with many other Google efforts , Go is n't managed exclusively by Google ( much like Android ) .
So your statement really does n't make much sense .
There are many people who do feel that Go is the correct logical step from many existing languages .
I 'm on the fence , but as a disinterested observer , I think its reasonable to say that the community of folks who are anticipating that future are largely not Google employees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This summary reads like a bad infomercial.
"How likely is it to really take over?
" not likely at all, and nobody would ask that question unless they worked for Google Marketing.As with many other Google efforts, Go isn't managed exclusively by Google (much like Android).
So your statement really doesn't make much sense.
There are many people who do feel that Go is the correct logical step from many existing languages.
I'm on the fence, but as a disinterested observer, I think its reasonable to say that the community of folks who are anticipating that future are largely not Google employees.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317704</id>
	<title>Re:No multi-dimensional arrays</title>
	<author>sabre86</author>
	<datestamp>1267464900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How long has Fortran had dynamic multidimensional arrays and how are they implemented without some sort of indirection? You can statically allocate multidimensional arrays in C just fine and it doesn't use indirection (I believe). I'm not so sure the pointers actually hurt you that much on performance, anyway. Continuously allocating an n-dimensional array is a pain, though, in C. And I'm facing a head scratcher right now as to why my C code on matrices is underperforming, but theoretically it works pretty well and other people seem to have had success with it.
<br> <br>
The issue as I've understood it is that C pointers aren't restricted by default, so the compiler can't assume that these are the only pointers to the array. C99 fixes that with "restrict" keyword. Your compiler may vary.<br> <br>Oh, and I believe it's foo[i * COLS + j]. C is row major.<br> <br>Seriously, native complex number vector operations would be awesome, particularly with automagic compilation to vector units or maybe to OpenCL.<br> <br>--sabre86</htmltext>
<tokenext>How long has Fortran had dynamic multidimensional arrays and how are they implemented without some sort of indirection ?
You can statically allocate multidimensional arrays in C just fine and it does n't use indirection ( I believe ) .
I 'm not so sure the pointers actually hurt you that much on performance , anyway .
Continuously allocating an n-dimensional array is a pain , though , in C. And I 'm facing a head scratcher right now as to why my C code on matrices is underperforming , but theoretically it works pretty well and other people seem to have had success with it .
The issue as I 've understood it is that C pointers are n't restricted by default , so the compiler ca n't assume that these are the only pointers to the array .
C99 fixes that with " restrict " keyword .
Your compiler may vary .
Oh , and I believe it 's foo [ i * COLS + j ] .
C is row major .
Seriously , native complex number vector operations would be awesome , particularly with automagic compilation to vector units or maybe to OpenCL .
--sabre86</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How long has Fortran had dynamic multidimensional arrays and how are they implemented without some sort of indirection?
You can statically allocate multidimensional arrays in C just fine and it doesn't use indirection (I believe).
I'm not so sure the pointers actually hurt you that much on performance, anyway.
Continuously allocating an n-dimensional array is a pain, though, in C. And I'm facing a head scratcher right now as to why my C code on matrices is underperforming, but theoretically it works pretty well and other people seem to have had success with it.
The issue as I've understood it is that C pointers aren't restricted by default, so the compiler can't assume that these are the only pointers to the array.
C99 fixes that with "restrict" keyword.
Your compiler may vary.
Oh, and I believe it's foo[i * COLS + j].
C is row major.
Seriously, native complex number vector operations would be awesome, particularly with automagic compilation to vector units or maybe to OpenCL.
--sabre86</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31321814</id>
	<title>Re:Alternatives?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267437120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does paralellism have to be so damn obvious and a burden on the application-programmer.</p><p>Simula &amp; PostScript by design support paralellism without the hassle. How much paralellism a program will achive depends solely on the developer of the compiler/interpreter (perhaps thats why no language-vendors want to  market Simula or PostScript any more).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does paralellism have to be so damn obvious and a burden on the application-programmer.Simula &amp; PostScript by design support paralellism without the hassle .
How much paralellism a program will achive depends solely on the developer of the compiler/interpreter ( perhaps thats why no language-vendors want to market Simula or PostScript any more ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does paralellism have to be so damn obvious and a burden on the application-programmer.Simula &amp; PostScript by design support paralellism without the hassle.
How much paralellism a program will achive depends solely on the developer of the compiler/interpreter (perhaps thats why no language-vendors want to  market Simula or PostScript any more).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317806</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31336502</id>
	<title>Re:already invented?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267527840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IIUC D 2.0 will have similar concurrency support to Go. It's imminent, but yes, it's only alpha for now.</p><p>Now Go, when are you going to support templates, exceptions, operator overloading?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IIUC D 2.0 will have similar concurrency support to Go .
It 's imminent , but yes , it 's only alpha for now.Now Go , when are you going to support templates , exceptions , operator overloading ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIUC D 2.0 will have similar concurrency support to Go.
It's imminent, but yes, it's only alpha for now.Now Go, when are you going to support templates, exceptions, operator overloading?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317790</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31326198</id>
	<title>You can create tens of thousands of coroutines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267462800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can't do that if you map each co-routine to a unique thread.</p><p>OS threads are klunky and heavy-weight - you have to state how big the stack size is in advance.</p><p>Go designers made the right decision.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't do that if you map each co-routine to a unique thread.OS threads are klunky and heavy-weight - you have to state how big the stack size is in advance.Go designers made the right decision .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't do that if you map each co-routine to a unique thread.OS threads are klunky and heavy-weight - you have to state how big the stack size is in advance.Go designers made the right decision.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317116</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31327136</id>
	<title>Re:Bright future to go.</title>
	<author>RocketRabbit</author>
	<datestamp>1267473120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just like Smalltalk!  (ducks)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like Smalltalk !
( ducks )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like Smalltalk!
(ducks)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316812</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31323066
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317704
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31322340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31321064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31321180
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319330
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31326198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319564
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317448
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31320450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31326234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31320414
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317342
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31321048
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31336502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31325958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31337248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318546
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31320268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31321300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317744
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31320322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31321814
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31327136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31321828
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31334486
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31323884
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31320530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31322270
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31320666
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31325032
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31326254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31325160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31322812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319152
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318098
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31320034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317910
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318948
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318268
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317320
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318160
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31320852
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317792
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31322008
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317790
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31326010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316932
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317464
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316666
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317396
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_01_1317228_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318436
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31324866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1317228.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316680
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1317228.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317080
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31337248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31334486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317806
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31321814
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1317228.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31323066
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318268
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317910
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31327136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317396
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1317228.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316626
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1317228.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319564
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31320414
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1317228.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316788
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1317228.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318226
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1317228.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1317228.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31320450
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31326234
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1317228.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317246
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1317228.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318200
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1317228.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318546
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31320268
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1317228.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317744
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319330
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31320322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1317228.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1317228.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316932
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317464
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31323884
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318682
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318680
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318160
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31320852
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31321048
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31321064
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319430
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1317228.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1317228.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318436
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31324866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1317228.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317364
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318948
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317704
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31320666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318098
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31320034
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317792
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1317228.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318880
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1317228.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317116
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31321828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31326198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31325958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31320530
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1317228.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31316666
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31325160
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317500
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1317228.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318272
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1317228.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31323928
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_01_1317228.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31317790
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31318910
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31326254
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31321180
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319282
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31322340
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31336502
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31322812
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319320
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31325032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31322270
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31326010
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31322008
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319152
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31319728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_01_1317228.31321300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
