Honestly, typical Go programs don't use that many complicated concurrent primitives. Typical patterns are "work fanout" and "overseer thread", both of which have very simple lifetime rules.
That's why a lot of typical server Go code can be ported to Rust rather easily. On Wednesday, February 12, 2020 at 1:36:40 PM UTC-8, Michael Jones wrote: > > To me it seems the issue of concurrency and dynamic ownership of memory > are so deeply connected to Go’s programming methodology that the “no GC” > comparison is biased. > > In particular, coding to do it yourself but as perfectly as the GC across > many concurrent routines is hard. Doing it better than the GC is hard. > Caution encourages use of the tuned GC. > > Agree with posts above: preallocation is fastest. Hard real time from the > 80s lesson. > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 1:07 PM <alex.b...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote: > >> I'm very familiar with this paper. It's not the first one that uses >> oracular memory management for comparison, the earlier one used ML as its >> langauge. >> >> The problem with these papers is that they're using very artificial >> benchmarks, not really representative of real workloads. They additionally >> use languages that are very heap-oriented, with very few value objects. >> >> GCs also have not radically improved since then, if anything they are >> worse now in massively-parallel environment than on single-core CPUs of >> yore. >> >> On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 8:54:29 PM UTC-8, robert engels wrote: >>> >>> Here is a paper from 2005 >>> https://people.cs.umass.edu/~emery/pubs/gcvsmalloc.pdf that proves >>> otherwise. >>> >>> GC techniques have radically improved since then, some with hardware >>> support, so much so that it is no longer a contest. >>> >>> To reiterate though, if you don’t have dynamic memory management - which >>> is essentially allocate and forget - that will “probably" be faster (many >>> GC systems have an extra level of indirection). >>> >>> You can write robust systems without dynamic memory, but it is very very >>> difficult - beyond the skills of most developers. >>> >>> So most developers resort to dynamic memory at some point - and once you >>> do that - GC will crush your manual memory management techniques. >>> >>> On Feb 11, 2020, at 10:31 PM, alex.b...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> Actually, it was not proven. And in practice manual memory management >>> seems to be outperforming GC in majority of cases. >>> >>> On Tuesday, February 11, 2020 at 5:59:26 PM UTC-8, robert engels wrote: >>>> >>>> It’s been PROVEN that GC outperforms all manual memory management >>>> except in EXTREMELY isolated cases (very non-traditional allocation or >>>> deallocation patterns). >>>> >>>> It’s all about constraints and tolerances. >>>> >>>> You design a “system” that takes both into account - if not, you’re not >>>> engineering, you're guessing. >>>> >>>> On Feb 11, 2020, at 4:29 AM, deat...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> >>>> What about #vlang ? https://vlang.io/ >>>> >>>> On Sunday, 17 June 2012 22:40:30 UTC+2, nsf wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 11:48:53 -0700 (PDT) >>>>> ⚛ <0xe2.0...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > > You can't have Go syntax without a garbage collector. >>>>> > > >>>>> > >>>>> > I wouldn't be so sure about it. >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> Let me rephrase myself. When someone says "I want Go without garbage >>>>> collection" it means a person wants a feel he has with Go, but at the >>>>> same time without garbage collection. At least that's my case. I >>>>> wanted >>>>> exactly that. And you can't have that. You can build a language >>>>> similar >>>>> to Go without GC, but you won't get a feel of Go. At least, I couldn't >>>>> do it. And maybe it's kind of obvious, but when there is a need to >>>>> manage memory, that factor alone creates a different programmer >>>>> mindset. >>>>> And in my opinion what Go does so well for a programmer is >>>>> establishing >>>>> its own mindset that gives a very nice and smooth development process. >>>>> What we call "a feel of Go". >>>>> >>>>> That's actually very same mistake that leads to talks like "where is >>>>> my >>>>> feature X? I want feature X in your language". And the problem here is >>>>> that a language is not just a collection of features, it's a >>>>> composition of features. You can't just stick something in and make it >>>>> better (see C++) and you can't throw something out. Every feature >>>>> addition/removal affects the language as a whole, mutating it to a >>>>> different state. And in my opinion GC is a critical feature that >>>>> allows >>>>> you to have memory safety and (well, let's put it that way) memory >>>>> safety is one of the major features in Go. >>>>> >>>>> So.. think about it. "I want Go with templates" and "I want Go without >>>>> garbage collection" are very similar things. Both hide the desire of >>>>> improving/changing something without realization that this will affect >>>>> other areas dramatically. >>>>> >>>>> And to make a summary: I tried that, I did that mistake thinking you >>>>> can build something out of Go just by taking parts you like and mixing >>>>> them in some weird way. I was stupid (to make it clear, I'm not >>>>> implying that anyone is). Hopefully what I said makes some sense. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Offtopic: >>>>> >>>>> Btw. Thanks for your work on GC precision, I really hope those patches >>>>> will get into Go. One of the areas where I want to apply Go is desktop >>>>> applications. And for these you need a precise GC, because some >>>>> desktop >>>>> apps have uptime measured in days or weeks (especially on geek's linux >>>>> machines) and you clearly don't want to get mozilla's firefox fame for >>>>> eating all the memory. >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "golang-nuts" group. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>>> an email to golan...@googlegroups.com. >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/165ebe92-362d-44f0-9ddb-2e152276b6fc%40googlegroups.com >>>> >>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/165ebe92-362d-44f0-9ddb-2e152276b6fc%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>>> . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "golang-nuts" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to golan...@googlegroups.com. >>> >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/c03420c5-d1b0-4c73-8a61-f4fa131018f9%40googlegroups.com >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/c03420c5-d1b0-4c73-8a61-f4fa131018f9%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >>> . >>> >>> >>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "golang-nuts" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to golan...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/465e2109-e0a5-4fdc-9dbf-5670eb73bfef%40googlegroups.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/465e2109-e0a5-4fdc-9dbf-5670eb73bfef%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> >> . >> > -- > > *Michael T. jonesmichae...@gmail.com <javascript:>* > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/77f3bc09-9444-4d15-85c5-88378e96aa1a%40googlegroups.com.
