>Then it needs to stop calling itself a 'systems programming language.'
Why must a systems programming language be static and strongly typed?
I don't mean to be flippant, but to me, 'systems programming language' means 'a language that facilitates productivity for systems programmers'. By that description, Go certainly qualifies.
>Mandatory GC, lack of generics and therefore rampant use of downcasting & duck typing -- these make it difficult to write safe and fast code for systems level or embedded type work.
Point taken, but not all system's programming requires such extreme safety.
ASM isn't strongly or statically typed, so that's obviously not a requirement for a "systems programming language".
The requirement most people mean, when they say "Go isn't a systems programming language", is the ability to acurately control execution. With Go, you can't, because of GC.
Google's definition seems to be "building large systems". For the types of large systems Google wants to build, Go works very well.
But others define it as "building operating systems". Go is horrible for that because of garbage collection and inability to directly access the hardware.
Why must a systems programming language be static and strongly typed?
I don't mean to be flippant, but to me, 'systems programming language' means 'a language that facilitates productivity for systems programmers'. By that description, Go certainly qualifies.
>Mandatory GC, lack of generics and therefore rampant use of downcasting & duck typing -- these make it difficult to write safe and fast code for systems level or embedded type work.
Point taken, but not all system's programming requires such extreme safety.