6 ms·

That’s not how you’d implement fibonacci in Go

• tgv 3y ago
  That's not how you'd implement it in rust either. It's a pretty bad benchmark. From my experience, I'd guess it's lack of tail recursion and the switch statement. That one can be slow in Go. It is however a good teaser for Moonbit.
• makapuf 3y ago
  Yes, using WASM and Go in an contrived example and not mentioning tinyGo is not very honest.
  • ghusbands 3y ago
    Do you have reason to believe that tinyGo would do better on that particular benchmark?
    • csjh 3y ago
      Based on the name, I’d imagine part of TinyGo’s raison d`être would be a smaller binary size. Plus, seems optimized for speed rather than speed-of-compiler
• spion 3y ago
  I'm not a fan of Go, but I have to admit that benchmark doesn't make any sense. If you use tail calls in a language that doesn't support TCO, then of course you'll get bad results. I guess its easier to just throw in some numbers than compare idiomatic implementations and then discuss tradeoffs with some nuance. Even if its just a language teaser, I'd still add a note on TCO to avoid misleading people though.