|
|
|
|
|
|
by ilovecaching
2797 days ago
|
|
|
> There were a lot of good ideas over the years (especially in Plan 9) and Go is really just a modern, polished revision of those ideas glued together. Plan 9 is an operating system. If you're referring to goroutines, CSP is completely unrelated to any of the work done at Bell Labs. That was Hoare. Go also kept a ton of terrible ideas, like nil, void (interface{}), and default mutability. > Go is a _systems_ language at heart. It really bothers me when people say this, because it's just untrue regurgitation from the Go team. It's not a systems language. It's a language that's pretty good for small web services. It has expensive interop (Solomon Hykes commented on this during one of his Gotime interviews) with C (even the Go team says cgo is not Go). > It's easy to drop into assembly for ultimate optimizations. You can only drop down into Plan 9 assembler, which is essentially useless. Write me an SGX lib without cgo in x86 and you can make that claim. |
|
|
> It's a language that's pretty good for small web services.
I know projects in production running HUGE web services written in Go serving millions of reqs/s. If that's small for you then I don't know what large is. Look at techempower benchmarks[1] and additionally compare the source of actix-raw (Rust) to fasthttp (Go).
OS written in Go: In experiments comparing nearly identical system call, page fault, and context switch code paths written in Go and C, the Go version was 5% to 15% slower.
Read the paper[2]
1. https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r16&hw=...
2. https://www.usenix.org/system/files/osdi18-cutler.pdf