What is Digg?158 Comments
- rblancarte, on 11/14/2009, -9/+183Before you all call out Google on this - go to both BING and Google (to take bias and conflict of interest out) and search for this language. I am serious. I looked for:
Programing Language Go!
Go!
frank mccabe
and frank mccabe Go
ALMOST Nothing. Google turned up these articles about how Go! already existed and Google "stole" it's name.
Interestingly enough - this is something about Go and Go! on Wikipedia. Go's (google's language) entry was created Nov 10, 2009. Go! (McCabe's language) was created Nov 11, 2009.
Also, go hit up Amazon For McCabe's book: NOT SOLD THERE!!! Lulu, a self publishing book company that is for people that don't have the money to do a huge book run on their own.
Look, I am not trying to say that this guy didn't write his language, he did. But he clearly hasn't done enough to get it out to the public as some viable language. Paper? Check. Book? Check. But anyone aware that this language existed? Try again.
What is even a bigger joke about this is that Go and Go! effectively are different names. For all I know ! is an operator in McCabe's language and thus Go! is like the C/C++ name difference.
People want to jump on Google for somethings, but I just don't see it here. This isn't one of them. - MacHarborGuy, on 11/14/2009, -3/+118"So far, their spokesman merely said they “recently became aware of the Go! issue and are now looking into the matter further.” But ignoring the issue definitely won’t go well with Google’s oft quoted mantra – “Don’t be evil”."
Um, didn't they just post a quote saying "recently became aware of the Go! issue and are now looking into the matter further". That does not sound like they are ignoring the issue, it sounds like they are acknowledging it. - DiggerLater, on 11/14/2009, -3/+111I like Goo better anyhow.
- richirwin, on 11/14/2009, -10/+59If Google had searched for "programming languages named Go" on Bing they would have realized it was taken.
- KevinRowz, on 11/14/2009, -5/+44If this guy uses words like "steam-rollering", I am skeptical that his language is that "well-designed". I bet he refers to methods as objectives and === as equaler.
- pimpofpixels, on 11/14/2009, -0/+30Yeah Goo is better. Go! is way too 90s butt rock for me.
- TWiThead, on 11/14/2009, -0/+25He also used the word "Lets" (without an apostrophe) in his book's title ("Lets Go!").
- r3bol, on 11/14/2009, -0/+24Investigate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goo_(programming_lang ...
- twiztidsinz, on 11/14/2009, -8/+30I always find it funny (and somewhat amazing) how quickly "Digg" (The community, not Digg itself) turns on Google, only to love them the next day, or even when a story comes out a few hours later...
You get a story like this... and sometimes the things said are very harsh, sometimes harsher than things typically said against Microsoft at times.
Then you'll have another story, where Google does something positive, and you'd think that Google is Jesus reincarnated or something and can do no wrong.
I can understand if they're two groups, and even understand that there is zero overlap between the two... but what I can't understand is there also seems to be zero overlap on comments. No one from the pro-Google side comes to defend them in negative stories (unless the article is pretty blatantly embellished/false), and no one from the anti-Google side makes "Remember when Google did __________?" posts. - rblancarte, on 11/14/2009, -6/+26Actually why does this need to be heard?
1. Similar named languages are not a big deal
2. Google's Go actually has brought Go! to the public, because until this article I had never heard of Go! - more so, doing searches on Bing, Google and Amazon, it appears that few others had either.
3. Actually they are differently named. Google went with "Go" and this guy went with "Go!". ! could be an operator in one of the languages.
In the end, I think this is just people feel the need to take a swipe at Google because they can. - cartermills, on 11/14/2009, -1/+21Technically, it is listed on Amazon. Only one third-party seller though.
http://www.amazon.com/Lets-Go-Francis-McCabe/dp/09 ... - phoomp, on 11/14/2009, -1/+19No trademark = no rights to the name
- doshindude, on 11/14/2009, -0/+18G++?
- the8thbit, on 11/14/2009, -0/+16I usually chose my language based on how slow the compile speed is. That way I have more time to screw around while I'm waiting for it to compile.
- burrdugg, on 11/14/2009, -3/+19The guy should lose the name solely for the grammatical error in his book title.
- rblancarte, on 11/14/2009, -1/+17Thanks for the find. I looked for LET'S not LETS.
- Zaetha, on 11/14/2009, -0/+15Hmm...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_Programming_Languag ... - Romeo81, on 11/14/2009, -5/+20It's the developer's fault, simple and plain. I'm certain Google checked the trademarks before they bought it and went with it. Now the guy is whining about how Google is going to screw him over. That's like coming up with a time machine and not patenting it, then when someone else comes up with one and patents it, you start throwing a fit. It's your own fault.
- Oltimega, on 11/14/2009, -2/+17I don't see it, what do you mean? All I see is articles about Google taking the name and a bunch of links to other languages.
- HotLeper, on 11/14/2009, -0/+15maybe they should change it to 'GONE' now
- Mateo2, on 11/14/2009, -1/+16I disregarded Go after watching the video and all they talked about was compile speed. Really, has ANYONE ever picked a language based on compile speed? That's the best you can do for me, compile speed? Really? You can do better than that google.
- rblancarte, on 11/14/2009, -1/+15"go bang"
- okcomputer01, on 11/14/2009, -5/+18http://code.google.com/p/go/issues/detail?id=9
They should change the name, apart from being an unsearchable term, it's only more than fair to McCabe.
Issue9/i9 has my vote, a meme named language would be cool, and by changing the name they would gain some positive publicity. - confoundedjoe, on 11/14/2009, -0/+13You wouldn't trademark it as a catchall. You would trademark it as a name for a programming language.
- breezeau, on 11/14/2009, -1/+14That page was created on 11th November 2009.
- borez, on 11/14/2009, -5/+17I bet he wished he owned that trademark. It could have made him a very rich man indeed.
- vishious, on 11/14/2009, -1/+11So does your mom.
- stoneage7, on 11/14/2009, -0/+10i like turtles
- JantjePietje, on 11/14/2009, -4/+14That's ridiculous if Go and Go! are different try starting a company named Google! or Yahoo and let's see who wins in court
- ThantiK, on 11/14/2009, -1/+10The first "Go" language has no trademark or anything on it, it's perfectly fine for google to name theirs "Go" as well. Although I do agree on it being a nearly unsearchable term.
- phoomp, on 11/14/2009, -2/+11What evil? Frank McCabe never bothered to trademark his use of the word "go".
- ubermensch00, on 11/14/2009, -2/+11"What is even a bigger joke about this is that Go and Go! effectively are different names. For all I know ! is an operator in McCabe's language and thus Go! is like the C/C++ name difference."
I agreed with everything you said including this until I thought about it for a second. The difference is when you say them aloud. Since the ! was not intended to be pronounced in any way. C++ is pronounced "c plus plus", where as Go! is prounced "go". - the8thbit, on 11/14/2009, -0/+9A programing one.
- pokobunt, on 11/14/2009, -0/+8WTF?
- phoomp, on 11/14/2009, -0/+8This is a bit different. Cisco actually *owned* the trademark for "iphone". Frank McCabe never bothered to trademark "go".
- nyxerebos, on 11/14/2009, -0/+8I just don't care all that much. I'd never heard of the other Go! language (but I'm excited about Google's new language), and I'm willing to believe it was an honest mistake. I've released stuff before only to discover someone else was using the same name, and it was a few guys doing this in their own time, not some huge corporate effort like a Microsoft product.
- haikuFU, on 11/14/2009, -1/+9I think they should name it Devo.
- tacojohn48, on 11/14/2009, -3/+11If only there was some way they could have searched for this information. Maybe they should try bing.
/s - thisthatwhat, on 11/14/2009, -0/+7Same thing can be said about anything in this world. The number of music players, the number of car manufacturers, the number of TV manufacturers, software wise -- number of operating systems, editors, messaging programs, etc... If you don't like then don't use it, thank "you" very much.
- HonoredMule, on 11/14/2009, -2/+9Yeah, because "Go" is such an awesome name, totally worth pilfering. /s
- d03boy, on 11/14/2009, -14/+21They should name it clown penis
- the8thbit, on 11/15/2009, -0/+7Because that's not your computer, it's a garbage can with one of those convenient foot buttons that opens the lid.
- geodebug, on 11/14/2009, -0/+7Because lets sure do go
- the8thbit, on 11/14/2009, -0/+6"I'm certain Google checked the trademarks before they bought it and went with it."
Who would even think to trademark the word 'Go'? - rblancarte, on 11/14/2009, -2/+8Searching for Frank McCabe's Go, it appear that the good PR is really his (because this language just hit the public).
- Super6, on 11/14/2009, -0/+6You're supposed to say "Go!" with more enthusiasm.
- cuby, on 11/14/2009, -1/+6sucks when people digg u down just because they missed a reference, especially a good one like this.
- ubermensch00, on 11/14/2009, -0/+5"go bang"
haha, and learn how with his book "Lets Go Bang"
but yeah, that'd be fine, I'm just saying it wasn't the originally intended pronunciation. Whether they're "legally" different names or not, I don't know, but considering if I was talking to you instead of typing and I said "I wrote this application entirely in Go!", you would have no idea which I was talking about (or you would assume I was talking about the Go created by the large comapny). So, in my opinion, that is a valid concern. - BitterBob, on 11/14/2009, -0/+5They should rename it iGo.
- Myztry, on 11/14/2009, -0/+5Or make it sound Spanish or something - like Logo. Wait a sec...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logo_(programming_lan ... -
Show 51 - 100 of 165 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is