Well go also uses its own assembler, on top of that a kind of modified garbage version of real ones. You can only justify so many reinventions of the wheel, yet they redid everything.
IIRC Go started out shipping with a port of the Plan9 C compiler and toolchain - it was bootstrapped by building the C compiler with your system C compiler, then building the Go compiler. Which, until re-written in Go circa-2013, was in Plan-9 style C. It all looks deeply idiosyncratic but it was a toolchain the initial implementors were highly familiar with.
Perhaps their IP requirement would not sufice Google lawyers?
Perhaps Go devs would rather have more control on the development of assembler by writing it from scratch to understand every design decision instead of inheriting thousands of unknown design decisions?
I don't know. Neither do others outside of the project.
I find these baseless micro-aggressions against Go missplaced and unfruitful.
> I find these baseless micro-aggressions against Go missplaced and unfruitful.
Hu? Ok then Go is perfect because it is developed in secret.
We are discussing here, I'm not "micro-agressing" anyone. If I don't like a design / re-implementation decision, and I in the mood to share that opinion with this cyber-assembly, I do it. And I expect developers to not be offended by me having a technical opinion; and I expect third parties to be even less offended. And yes, it might be a bad opinion in some cases. I'm not even 100% sure it is not the case here, because like you said they could have had some kind of justification to do that. But it suspect it is extremely rare to have a good justification to rewrite an assembler, with really big quirks on top of that, when they did it.
Didn't implied that at all. No need for straw man.
> You can only justify so many reinventions of the wheel, yet they redid everything.
Don't extrapolate what I write.
We're adults here, can we please not talk like tumblr blog posters?