
The long goodbye to C - ingve
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7711
======
zbentley
> It was after this that I began to feature what I called “the harsh lesson of
> Perl” in my talks – that is, any new language that ships without a full
> POSIX binding semantically equivalent to C’s will fail.

I'm not familiar with those talks, but it seems to me that Perl has at least
as "full" of a POSIX binding as Python. Is he saying that Perl failed because
of this? Or succeeded?

Sure, there are some POSIX things you can't do out of the box with Perl:
threads are weird (and they are in Python too, just in different ways), and
some stdlib functions aren't made available without libraries (e.g. IPC
functions), but that's similar to Python's choices of what to expose as well.

[https://metacpan.org/pod/distribution/perl/ext/POSIX/lib/POS...](https://metacpan.org/pod/distribution/perl/ext/POSIX/lib/POSIX.pod)

------
philonoist
This is a dupe to the already full fledged discussion
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15670423](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15670423)

------
TheAsprngHacker
Is Go really comparable to C?

~~~
parthpower
Performance wise? somewhat,
[https://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/compare.php?la...](https://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/compare.php?lang=go&lang2=gcc)

Moreover, it depends on what type of program you want. If you are in low-level
embedded/kernel/driver region if you can't use ASM then use C, at max go to
C++. For high-level web servers, no to C.

Basically, both languages are totally different universes. "you can't judge a
fish by its ability to climb a tree"

