Category talk:Go: Difference between revisions
→In general, non-solutions: trans
(→In general, non-solutions: More opinions) |
(→In general, non-solutions: trans) |
||
Line 11:
* Solutions that essentially implement the task in C or C++ code called through Cgo or Swig, excepting of course, tasks that specifically mention going outside of the language.
:This is what we have {{tmpl|trans}} for. I may be biased because I created the template, but I think it's useful to see code directly translated line-for-line from another language (that's really the clearest comparison isn't it?). I think this is a case where you would keep one example that might be "bad" (i.e. that essentially copies the C or C++ example) and then also add another one that is more idiomatic to demonstrate how this language does things better/differently. --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 04:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
::Ah, not what I meant. Cgo and Swig are foreign function interfaces. They enable you to say, "I can't do this in Go, so I'll write the whole thing in C, compile it with a C compiler, link the C object module to one line of Go code that just calls this C function to do everything."
::I do like the trans template and have used it once or twice. I also see your point about the two versions. That does make sense and I'll watch for occasions where I think that might be appropriate. —[[User:Sonia|Sonia]] 05:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
* Solutions that use package unsafe to do most of what they do. It might be acceptable to use unsafe for accessing something or converting something, but not wholesale implementation of the task by peek and poke.
| |||