3 ms·

While channels definitely aren't anything new, and are just a renamed locking queue structure, why do you say they're "a really bad implementation"?

• kasey_junk 11y ago
  They don't scale well because of lock contention, the syntax is missing standard concepts like timeouts etc, & the behavior around edge cases around initialization, closed channels, nil values etc is bizarre.
  • azth 11y ago
    Aren't they "lock-free" though?
    • kasey_junk 11y ago
      Not in the least. They are a thin veneer on top of a giant mutex.
      • azth 11y ago
        That's quite disturbing :P Any idea why they didn't implement channels as a lock-free list, ala java.util.concurrent.ConcurrentLinkedQueue?
        • eropple 11y ago
          I don't presume to speak for Go's developers, but I would guess because it's not that big a deal, especially in a cooperative environment. "If I can't obtain the mutex, yield" is a perfectly defensible thing, and is easier to write and probably to maintain than a lock-free list. Having Java's concurrent stuff is nice, don't get me wrong, but I can understand it not being the biggest priority in the world to go rebuild that later. As I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, there are much bigger beefs.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]