I think it's rather the other way around. What parent said, even though they prefixed it with a 'maybe' to make their statement less confronting, is that you used the term "systems programming language" too freely. As is also the case with Go.
If people keep doing that, the term will eventually loose meaning.
Maybe in 20 years, it will have eroded enough that something like Python will be called a "systems programming language". I mean after all, a printf statement in C also parses the format string at runtime. Who is to say the fact that all of the code is interpreted should thusly exclude something like Python? I'm being sarcastic, if that wasn't obvious.
Nature claims 'concise'ness in it's README's opening paragraph. That is laudable. It's even more laudable if the conciseness would also be reflected in the use of natural language (no pun) that describes it.
Calling it a "systems programming language" while using GC is IMHO eroding the meaning of the term.
Something meaning X and someone including Y and then someone pointing out that X does not include Y has thusly nothing to do with stereotypes here.
If people keep doing that, the term will eventually loose meaning. Maybe in 20 years, it will have eroded enough that something like Python will be called a "systems programming language". I mean after all, a printf statement in C also parses the format string at runtime. Who is to say the fact that all of the code is interpreted should thusly exclude something like Python? I'm being sarcastic, if that wasn't obvious.
Nature claims 'concise'ness in it's README's opening paragraph. That is laudable. It's even more laudable if the conciseness would also be reflected in the use of natural language (no pun) that describes it.
Calling it a "systems programming language" while using GC is IMHO eroding the meaning of the term.
Something meaning X and someone including Y and then someone pointing out that X does not include Y has thusly nothing to do with stereotypes here.