Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

From replies to the parent: > a) Go is open source > By your argument, C++ is controlled by Bell Labs. > The C# specification has an ECMA and ISO standard

Oh come on, you know 16s was talking about implementations and tendencies of the parent company to engage in malevolent lawsuits trying to shut down alternatives.

Wherein an open source language, mostly developed by Company X, dies out because they stop developing it and the contributors remaining are not as good / interested. Let's not kid ourselves, open source is not magical fairy dust that does work for you. It works based on a set of personal incentives in alignment with the public good, and so sometimes it doesn't.

Same with ISO standards. They don't specify goodness. The Mono replacement for C# is finally getting there, but a few years ago, if the MS C# implementation had died off, would I replace it with Mono? God no.



Why does everyone pretend GCCGO doesn't exist in these conversations? An alternative implementation already exists, and has existed since very early on. If nothing else, it demonstrates that re-implementation is a feasible option, should that ever become necessary. (I don't see why it should, since the official is BSD licensed.)


Producing a different rabbit out of the hat that Google themselves don't use in production (from my understanding) doesn't change anything.


What does that have to do with anything? Who cares what google does or doesn't do? That is rather the point of this particular thread of discussion, in case you missed.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: