5 ms·
Not sure what your point is. Mine is that throwing out decades of compiler optimizations is a serious cost to pay.
by staticassertion 4y ago
Not sure what your point is. Mine is that throwing out decades of compiler optimizations is a serious cost to pay.
- geodel 4y agoThats a kind of gaslighting isn't it. Seem to be saying no one dare to write new compiler ever because v1 of new compiler will be very likely worse than v10 of existing compiler technology. If they could have simply use LLVM they would be stuck with slow compilation that Rust folks are very fond of telling. And they would not be able to use segmented stack which was differentiating factor for language.
- staticassertion 4y agoI didn't say it was the wrong call. My favorite part about new languages is being able to look at their choices over the course of decades.
- geodel 4y agoWell it is implied, if one talk only about great cost but not benefits.
- staticassertion 4y agoThe post is about the optimization being implemented now. The cost is that it wasn't implemented before. I find that interesting.
- morelisp 4y ago> Thats a kind of gaslighting isn't it. No, jesus christ, not every bad take is gaslighting.
- steveklabnik 4y agoI thought Go removed segmented stacks in 1.3. Is that incorrect?
- coder543 4y agoGo doesn’t use segmented stacks anymore, but it does still have resizable stacks that start small and are technically able to grow to any size. IIRC, they were artificially capped at 1GB a few years ago since it was decided that stacks larger than that usually indicate an obvious bug, and if infinite recursion causes a goroutine stack to consume all memory on a machine, the OOM killer would make this harder to diagnose than a reproducible panic with a backtrace.
- pjmlp 4y agoAnother one is adding yet another reason to keep writing code in C and C++.