3 ms·
Article has lot of guess work about Go's GC. However in comments section some shortcomings of his claims are pointed out including one by Go GC implementer, he
by geodel 10y ago
Article has lot of guess work about Go's GC. However in comments section some shortcomings of his claims are pointed out including one by Go GC implementer, he added more guesses about his assumptions. This may all be very valid but there are no numbers for that in this piece.
- sambe 10y agoThere's not "a lot" of guess work. It's quite clear to read that it is mostly about GC trade-offs and technologies in the general sense, not especially critical of Go's implementation. There are very few absolute claims of good/bad, if any. A poster on a Go forum admits that the latency improvement cost 20% CPU usage, and the article doesn't call this necessarily bad. You're making a very uncharitable interpretation, and unjustifyably calling them guesses only makes it more so.
- geodel 10y agoIt is lot of guess because there are no memory usage numbers or throughput numbers to get general sense of how Go GC is worse for applications. Even in the thread about 20% CPU usage increase mentions that Go implementer considers this much higher than expected and is likely a bug. But author make it sound in article as Go guys are calling it reasonable tradeoff for low latency.