3 ms·

>"Go's original runtime sucked and there's been a lot of work put into making it better too, I guess they should have just stuck with it?" Could you elaborate

• weberc2 8y ago
  I think he's remarking about how the first version of anything is almost always suboptimal compared to later versions. I.e., it "sucked" compared to later versions, almost by definition.
• jerf 8y ago
  The original runtime had far, far worse GC pauses. They concentrated on making sure they could make a good one later rather than getting a perfect one out the door immediately. There was also a series of crashing bugs of varying severity in the first couple of versions. Even then you had to go a bit out of your way to find one, but they're a lot harder to come by now. Nothing that surprising, really. If you look at Go's release note history: https://golang.org/doc/devel/release.html https://golang.org/doc/devel/release.html look towards the first few releases for the bugs they mention. For instance, here's a 1.1 fix: https://github.com/golang/go/commit/d72c550f1c7e13c323f4507b57d741ed00f0b0cd https://github.com/golang/go/commit/d72c550f1c7e13c323f4507b... One of the advantages of not mutating the language too much is that there aren't very many things like this in the last few releases. I would expect the first 2.0 release to have a few rough edges even in the first non-beta release.