>Yeah? Interesting. Because all popular languages that I've used, up until Go, fail at concurrency at such a basic level, that it's almost as if their authors don't understand what concurrency is. Except Erlang. But then again, I said popular.
You added "popular" now, to deflect from what he said: that those features already existed outside of Go. If a feature exists for 20+ years, having it in your language is not a sign that you "copied it" from a 5 year old language.
Not to mention that he also said "almost all" features, and was replying in the context that Swift copied Go. In that context Go's concurrency is irrelevant, since Swift doesn't have the same mechanisms.
You added "popular" now, to deflect from what he said: that those features already existed outside of Go. If a feature exists for 20+ years, having it in your language is not a sign that you "copied it" from a 5 year old language.
Not to mention that he also said "almost all" features, and was replying in the context that Swift copied Go. In that context Go's concurrency is irrelevant, since Swift doesn't have the same mechanisms.