|
|
|
|
|
|
by 4ydx
3990 days ago
|
|
|
Yes and they made a conscious decision to not include so much in the language in order to make the compiler fast so your criticism is rather odd. They made a choice. It results in a faster compiler. And yet your comment comes across as if this is somehow unfounded praise. Nonetheless we have all come to love your "get-off-my-lawn" sort of approach to criticising golang at this point, I suppose :) |
|
|
The null compiler (which produces nothing) is even faster, but 1000s of orders of magnitude.
As you can see I'm not in favor of the choices they made to make the compiler fast.
It's not much of a feat -- it's like writing a 8-bit era like game, and bragging that it gets 2000 fps performance.
First, after 60 fps it's dimminishing returns anyway, and second, yes, but at what cost?