On Saturday, 22 August 2015 at 06:54:43 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
On Saturday, 22 August 2015 at 06:48:48 UTC, Russel Winder
wrote:
But one that Google are entirely happy to fully fund.
Yes, they have made Go fully supported on Google Cloud now, so
I think it is safe to say that Google
On Sunday, 23 August 2015 at 12:49:35 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
You are mixing too many factors here. General purpose has
nothing to do with performance, it is to do with can the
language describe most if not all forms of computation. Go is a
general purpose programming language just like C,
On Sun, 2015-08-23 at 11:26 +, rsw0x via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[…]
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/golang
-dev/pIuOcqAlvKU/C0wooVzXLZwJ
25-50% performance decrease across the board in 1.4 with the
addition of write barriers, to an already slow language.
Garbage collection
On Sat, 2015-08-22 at 11:06 +, Laeeth Isharc via Digitalmars-d
-learn wrote:
[…]
Builds in Go 1.5 will be slower by a factor of about two. The
automatic translation of the compiler and linker from C to Go
resulted in unidiomatic Go code that performs poorly compared to
well-written
On Sat, 2015-08-22 at 09:27 +, rsw0x via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[…]
The performance decrease has been there since 1.4 and there is no
way to remove it - write barriers are the cost you pay for
concurrent collection. Go was already much slower than other
compiled languages, now it
On Saturday, 22 August 2015 at 12:48:31 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
The problem with D's GC is that there's no scaffolding there
for it, so you can't really improve it.
At best you could make the collector parallel.
If I had the runtime hooks and language guarantees I needed I'd
begin work on a
On Sunday, 23 August 2015 at 11:06:20 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Sat, 2015-08-22 at 09:27 +, rsw0x via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[…]
The performance decrease has been there since 1.4 and there is
no way to remove it - write barriers are the cost you pay for
concurrent collection. Go
On Sat, 2015-08-22 at 07:30 +, rsw0x via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[…]
because Go is not a general purpose language.
Not entirely true. Go is a general purpose language, it is a successor
to C as envisioned by Rob Pike, Russ Cox, and others (I am not sure how
much input Brian Kernighan
On Saturday, 22 August 2015 at 09:16:32 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Sat, 2015-08-22 at 07:30 +, rsw0x via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[...]
Not entirely true. Go is a general purpose language, it is a
successor to C as envisioned by Rob Pike, Russ Cox, and others
(I am not sure how much
On Saturday, 22 August 2015 at 09:16:32 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Sat, 2015-08-22 at 07:30 +, rsw0x via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[…]
because Go is not a general purpose language.
Not entirely true. Go is a general purpose language, it is a
successor to C as envisioned by Rob Pike,
On 8/22/2015 10:47 PM, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
On Saturday, 22 August 2015 at 09:16:32 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Sat, 2015-08-22 at 07:30 +, rsw0x via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
[…]
because Go is not a general purpose language.
Not entirely true. Go is a general purpose language, it is
On Saturday, 22 August 2015 at 07:30:23 UTC, rsw0x wrote:
On Saturday, 22 August 2015 at 06:48:48 UTC, Russel Winder
wrote:
On Fri, 2015-08-21 at 10:47 +, via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
Yes, Go has sacrificed some compute performance in favour of
latency and convenience. They have also
On Saturday, 22 August 2015 at 10:47:55 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
Out of curiosity, how much funding is required to develop the
more straightforward kind of GCs ?
A classical GC like D has is very straightforward. It is been
used since the 60s, I even have a paper from 1974 or so
describing
On Saturday, 22 August 2015 at 07:02:40 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
I think Go 2 is a long way off, and even then generics will not
be part of the plan.
I agree that Go from Google will stay close to the ideals of the
creators. I think it would be difficult get beyond that for
social reasons.
On Fri, 2015-08-21 at 10:47 +, via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
Yes, Go has sacrificed some compute performance in favour of
latency and convenience. They have also released GC improvement
plans for 1.6:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kBx98ulj5V5M9Zdeamy7v6ofZXX3yPziA
On Saturday, 22 August 2015 at 06:48:48 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
But one that Google are entirely happy to fully fund.
Yes, they have made Go fully supported on Google Cloud now, so I
think it is safe to say that Google management is backing Go
fully.
I'm kinda hoping for Go++...
On Sat, 2015-08-22 at 06:54 +, via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote:
On Saturday, 22 August 2015 at 06:48:48 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
But one that Google are entirely happy to fully fund.
Yes, they have made Go fully supported on Google Cloud now, so I
think it is safe to say that Google
On Saturday, 22 August 2015 at 06:48:48 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
On Fri, 2015-08-21 at 10:47 +, via Digitalmars-d-learn
wrote:
Yes, Go has sacrificed some compute performance in favour of
latency and convenience. They have also released GC
improvement plans for 1.6:
On Saturday, 22 August 2015 at 10:47:55 UTC, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
On Saturday, 22 August 2015 at 09:16:32 UTC, Russel Winder
wrote:
[...]
I didn't mean to start again the whole GC and Go vs D thing.
Just that one ought to know the lay of the land as it develops.
Out of curiosity, how much
Yes, Go has sacrificed some compute performance in favour of
latency and convenience. They have also released GC improvement
plans for 1.6:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kBx98ulj5V5M9Zdeamy7v6ofZXX3yPziAf0V27A64Mo/edit
It is rather obvious that a building a good concurrent GC is a
20 matches
Mail list logo
