4 ms·

You realize that Go also is GCed right?

amaks 10y ago
Yes, and I never said that Go is a systems language. I said Go has found a niche of networking services. This doesn't make it a systems language.
- pjmlp 10y ago
  It makes it, because it has all the same language features as Oberon has. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberon_(operating_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberon_(operating_system) http://wiki.osdev.org/Go_Bare_Bones http://wiki.osdev.org/Go_Bare_Bones If I am able to write an OS using just the language, with the help of some Assembly, or bootstrap the language and runtime, it is a systems language. Many of the criteria people use to judge systems languages like inline assembly, would disqualify C when applied to a pure ANSI C compliant compiler without language extensions.
  - amaks 10y ago
    The primary criteria where a system language should be judged is the control over the underlying machine code execution. With GC languages you don't have any - the GC will kick in unpredictably. It may not be an issue for UI (although everyone hates when UI stumbles), but for system code like OS, DBMS, etc. it's simply not acceptable. Languages like C and Rust offer this level of control - you simply know exactly what your code is doing at any given time. With JVM, .NET, Go - you don't.
    - pjmlp 10y ago
      And yet Xerox PARC, UK Royal Navy, DEC all managed to write operating systems in GC enabled systems programming languages, some of them quite productive Workstation OSes. You don't want the GC to mess with your lovely data structure? Allocate on the stack, as a global static or let the GC know not to touch it. Check Algol-68RS, Mesa/Cedar, Modula-2+, Modula-3, Oberon, Oberon-2, Active Oberon, Oberon-07.
    - Rusky 10y ago
      You can control the GC by not allocating, or by allocating off-heap, when you need to. It is totally possible to write kernels, DBMSes, network stacks, etc. in GC languages. Whether a particular language makes that nice enough to be more worth using than a non-GC language is another question.
    - naasking 10y ago
      > With GC languages you don't have any - the GC will kick in unpredictably. This is only true of specific GC implementations. Incremental GCs never pause the program. On-the-fly and realtime GCs pause the program for a few microseconds.
snaky 10y ago
LuaJIT is GCed and being used in many system software projects from SnabbSwitch to NetBSD kernel[1] [1] https://www.netbsd.org/gallery/presentations/mbalmer/fosdem2012/kernel_mode_lua.pdf https://www.netbsd.org/gallery/presentations/mbalmer/fosdem2...

amaks 10y ago

Yes, and I never said that Go is a systems language. I said Go has found a niche of networking services. This doesn't make it a systems language.

pjmlp 10y ago
It makes it, because it has all the same language features as Oberon has. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberon_(operating_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberon_(operating_system) http://wiki.osdev.org/Go_Bare_Bones http://wiki.osdev.org/Go_Bare_Bones If I am able to write an OS using just the language, with the help of some Assembly, or bootstrap the language and runtime, it is a systems language. Many of the criteria people use to judge systems languages like inline assembly, would disqualify C when applied to a pure ANSI C compliant compiler without language extensions.
- amaks 10y ago
  The primary criteria where a system language should be judged is the control over the underlying machine code execution. With GC languages you don't have any - the GC will kick in unpredictably. It may not be an issue for UI (although everyone hates when UI stumbles), but for system code like OS, DBMS, etc. it's simply not acceptable. Languages like C and Rust offer this level of control - you simply know exactly what your code is doing at any given time. With JVM, .NET, Go - you don't.
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    And yet Xerox PARC, UK Royal Navy, DEC all managed to write operating systems in GC enabled systems programming languages, some of them quite productive Workstation OSes. You don't want the GC to mess with your lovely data structure? Allocate on the stack, as a global static or let the GC know not to touch it. Check Algol-68RS, Mesa/Cedar, Modula-2+, Modula-3, Oberon, Oberon-2, Active Oberon, Oberon-07.
  - Rusky 10y ago
    You can control the GC by not allocating, or by allocating off-heap, when you need to. It is totally possible to write kernels, DBMSes, network stacks, etc. in GC languages. Whether a particular language makes that nice enough to be more worth using than a non-GC language is another question.
  - naasking 10y ago
    > With GC languages you don't have any - the GC will kick in unpredictably. This is only true of specific GC implementations. Incremental GCs never pause the program. On-the-fly and realtime GCs pause the program for a few microseconds.

snaky 10y ago

LuaJIT is GCed and being used in many system software projects from SnabbSwitch to NetBSD kernel[1] [1] https://www.netbsd.org/gallery/presentations/mbalmer/fosdem2012/kernel_mode_lua.pdf https://www.netbsd.org/gallery/presentations/mbalmer/fosdem2...