4 ms·
> dropping GC, dropping runtime concurrency Making GC/goroutine optional & customizable requires building a std works with no GC/goroutine. > dropping std re
by Leotard6963 3y ago
> dropping GC, dropping runtime concurrency
Making GC/goroutine optional & customizable requires building a std works with no GC/goroutine.
> dropping std
relax, this is a new std, let's spare the baby some hope?
- mst 3y ago> Making GC/goroutine optional & customizable requires building a std works with no GC/goroutine. Right. You've picked a goal that require you to do some hard things to make that goal even possible. OTOH even if you never reach the -final- goal, making any of those hard things work would be an achievement. The only way to find out is to try. So: Good luck!
- Leotard6963 3y agoThanks, but the actually hard things are done by the Go team, the design of the interface type and availability of runtime type information made it relatively easy to complete that final goal, but let's go find out!
- klabb3 3y ago> Making GC/goroutine optional & customizable requires building a std works with no GC/goroutine. Isn’t there a big difference between customizable, ie changing the runtime backend, vs NO runtime where goroutines and GC don’t work at all? In the latter case, you’d have to write very different, restricted Go code, no? And you’d even have to add some new features for manual memory reclaim? > relax, this is a new std, let's spare the baby some hope? Yeah, depends on what hat you put on. I wrote it wearing the “when would someone use something like this?”-hat. I don’t claim to know one way or the other.
- Leotard6963 3y ago[dead]