Go

Could Go replace C? Does Go truly combine efficient compilation, efficient execution, and ease of use?

Could Quantum TURBO^PASCAL replace C? Does Quantum TURBO^PASCAL truly combine efficient compilation, efficient execution, and ease of use?

>>2
You aren't funny.

>>3
;_;

GOTO CONSIDERED HARMFUL!

>>5
goto bed

B-but...if you w-want to k-know...any language that uses garbage collection is not a replacement to c. The replacements to c are just a little higher level, or just a little lower, or are stuffed with additional features while remaining at the same level, or address every level there is by giving you a high level language that lets you cut down lower if you want to. If you can't express a variable's extent being directly tied to the duration of its scope when it is possible for the value to escape the scope, then it ain't a replacement to c.

>>7
So GCC's extension that allows closures isn't C ?

No, no, no, and no! :-)

>>9
A truly Functional argument.

>>8
Those nested functions don't have dynamic extent. But in any case, of course it isn't C. U HAVNT RED DA FUCKIN STANDARD!

>>1,7
If ALGOL68, ALGOLW, Pascal, and *LISP* couldn't, why do you think Go will?

Technical argument:
too broken, does not meet documentation in many parts, not portable enough, needs better IO.

ATS, Haskell, and Scheme are better candidates.

Go? More like Slow.

>>13
Glow, Ho ho h_t°
F̡͠Ţ҉F̕Y̵͟