[igouy]

> That benchmarks game quote supports my point…

As-long-as your point was not intended to be dismissive in any way.

> prohibited optimizations

Go programs are not prohibited from using arena allocation provided by a generally available library — that is what the C++ programs do.

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a generally available Go library that provides arena allocation. Of course, Go does provide GC.

[weberc2]

It is dismissive of the idea that the game can tell you meaningful things about a programming language’s average or percentile performance or even its peak performance.

> Go programs are not prohibited...

Right, and this is why the Go benchmarks for allocations aren’t very meaningful. Using arenas (or other kinds of preallocation) is a common optimization in Go even if Go doesn’t have a library for it.

I’m sure you’re well aware of all of this since you evidently contributed to these benchmarks, but for other readers, here’s a good thread about why these benchmarks aren’t meaningful.

[igouy]

Where did you get the idea that 10 tiny tiny programs could tell you about a programming language’s average performance?

Who in this discussion has made any such a claim?

You repeatedly put up a straw man.

[weberc2]

Im not sure why you’re confused. ilovecaching made claims about the relative performance of programming languages based on the benchmark game.

[igouy]

ilovecaching responded to your claim that — [Go's] performance is closer to Java — by posting links to pages on the benchmarks game website.

ilovecaching pointed to the performance of specific Go and Java programs

Now you have put up a straw man — "a programming language’s average or percentile performance or even its peak performance."