>There are commercial native compilers for Java and .NET if you are willing to pay for them. Language != Implementation
For C or C++ and a few others, maybe. For most other languages, language and implementation are very much tied, for practical reasons (size of community, maturity, degree of compatibility, etc etc).
As for using some Java/.NET "commercial native compiler" is not a real (or desired) option for most people/companies. For one, it delves into non standard waters, and can bring obscure bugs, restrictions (e.g reflection related), etc. Second, you have to pay. Third, it's one more thing to pile on top of your language choice. Where my argument was that Go gives some people using it LESS things to worry about.
For the rest of your list: the point was that they get ALL of them from Go at the same time. Being able to get one or another feature from this or that language is not comparable to that.
I also don't understand why you bring Rust into this. Rust is not production ready -- even the project leaders advise AGAINST using it for anything production related. It's also in flux, and the syntax is still changing. So, nice language as it shapes to be, isn't it obvious that it's not in any way an alternative to Go for at least one more year?
> For the rest of your list: the point was that they get ALL of them from Go at the same time. Being able to get one or another feature from this or that language is not comparable to that.
I just wanted to enumerate a few languages where those features are present.
If you feel like, I can present an extensive list of every Go feature and which languages offer similar support.
But what would be the point besides fueling a flamewar?
I jumped into Go at the begging, because I was looking for something with the features of today's mainstream languages and the language's Oberon influence interested me. Given the time I spent with Native Oberon back in the 90's.
In the end I became disappointed as the language is not much more than Limbo (1995) reborn.
> I also don't understand why you bring Rust into this. Rust is not production ready
So what, Go also wasn't when I was using it, and it did not prevent companies like Canonical to use the language in production.
I just get the feeling if Go authors weren't working at Google, the language wouldn't be given front page presence on HN every day, given its design.
On the other hand, I wish Go becomes success as it might help decrease even more the use cases where C is still relevant.
>So what, Go also wasn't when I was using it, and it did not prevent companies like Canonical to use the language in production.
Go was far more production ready even when it first appeared (after internal development). For Rust, we are at the stage or internal development at this point, only it happens publicly. So the two are in no way comparable in that respect -- and that's why Canonical had no problem using it in production.
>I just get the feeling if Go authors weren't working at Google, the language wouldn't be given front page presence on HN every day, given its design.
Yes, but they are and so it is. Which reminds of a Jimmy Carr joke, about his girlfriend.
"People would say to me: she's only with you cause you're famous. And I'd tell them, well, I AM famous, so what's your point?".
So, even if people are using Go because of Google, well, it IS Google that is behind the language, so this also helps it.
For C or C++ and a few others, maybe. For most other languages, language and implementation are very much tied, for practical reasons (size of community, maturity, degree of compatibility, etc etc).
As for using some Java/.NET "commercial native compiler" is not a real (or desired) option for most people/companies. For one, it delves into non standard waters, and can bring obscure bugs, restrictions (e.g reflection related), etc. Second, you have to pay. Third, it's one more thing to pile on top of your language choice. Where my argument was that Go gives some people using it LESS things to worry about.
For the rest of your list: the point was that they get ALL of them from Go at the same time. Being able to get one or another feature from this or that language is not comparable to that.
I also don't understand why you bring Rust into this. Rust is not production ready -- even the project leaders advise AGAINST using it for anything production related. It's also in flux, and the syntax is still changing. So, nice language as it shapes to be, isn't it obvious that it's not in any way an alternative to Go for at least one more year?