Re: [go-nuts] Re: In case you missed it: language benchmarks for Go 1.7, and language adoption

2016-09-06 Thread sascha.l.teichmann via golang-nuts
Am Montag, 5. September 2016 15:41:28 UTC+2 schrieb Jason E. Aten: > > > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:44:57 AM UTC-7, Eric Johnson wrote: >> >> >> On 8/31/16 2:04 AM, Harald Weidner wrote: >> > The Java counterpart of this benchmark does not use the Java build-in >> > maps, but imports a

Re: [go-nuts] Re: In case you missed it: language benchmarks for Go 1.7, and language adoption

2016-09-07 Thread sascha.l.teichmann via golang-nuts
2016-09-06 22:47 GMT+02:00, Jason E. Aten : > nice! would you mind releasing under an MIT or BSD license? I think it > would be It's MIT licensed now. > worth posting the hashmap alone as a reusable library. Maybe. For the shootout I prefer the embedded variant to to demonstrate it is do-able w

Re: [go-nuts] Re: In case you missed it: language benchmarks for Go 1.7, and language adoption

2016-09-07 Thread sascha.l.teichmann via golang-nuts
Am Mittwoch, 7. September 2016 11:12:21 UTC+2 schrieb sascha.l@googlemail.com: > > I hope you submit your code... I would be great to be on par with java > all > > around! here's the instructions -- > > > > http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/play.html > > I will try. Currently my Go

Re: [go-nuts] Re: In case you missed it: language benchmarks for Go 1.7, and language adoption

2016-09-07 Thread sascha.l.teichmann via golang-nuts
Am Mittwoch, 7. September 2016 16:32:19 UTC+2 schrieb Isaac Gouy: > > > > On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 2:12:21 AM UTC-7, > sascha.l@googlemail.com wrote: > >> >> Maybe. For the shootout I prefer the embedded variant to >> to demonstrate it is do-able without resorting to 3rd party libs

Re: [go-nuts] Re: In case you missed it: language benchmarks for Go 1.7, and language adoption

2016-09-07 Thread sascha.l.teichmann via golang-nuts
Am Mittwoch, 7. September 2016 18:20:28 UTC+2 schrieb Isaac Gouy: > > > > On Wednesday, September 7, 2016 at 8:15:09 AM UTC-7, > sascha.l@googlemail.com wrote: > >> >> If this does not count the Benchmark game follows a skewed defintion of a >> library. >> > > > I'm sorry that you don't s