4 ms·

It's amazing how nonchalant they are about this 'oh sure we'll fix it in a year or so' when the garbage collector is basically all there needs to be in a Google

It's amazing how nonchalant they are about this 'oh sure we'll fix it in a year or so' when the garbage collector is basically all there needs to be in a Google Go runtime Some comments were asking why early Java's GC wasn't this bad even though it was conservative. The reason is that Java can't take references to fields of an object, so the data mistaken as a pointer has to actually point to an object header. In Google Go you can take a reference to a field, locking the whole object, so the faux pointer can point to any field as well (or in this probably any location in the object). Not exactly the wisest choice in semantics, as they are seeing now that it complicates the GC.

4ad 15y ago
It's not Google Go, it's simply Go, there's not a single Google reference on the web page and that's intentional. Looking at your previous posts here and on Reddit I see you are a notorious anti-Google troll that adds "Google" to "Go" so that your negative posts will be associated with both Google and Go. It's absurd to call it Google Go when there's a first class GNU implementation that has been in development from the beginning, there's at least a closed source implementation and another distinct BSD license implementation in its infancy. It makes even less sense than saying Apple LLVM, Juniper FreeBSD, or AT&T C.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  The number of times people have needed to tell this guy this is staggering.
- rand_r 15y ago
  Any recommendation on how we should google for Go related pages?
  - 4ad 15y ago
    Golang or Go programming works fine. If searching for Google Go produces meaningful results, by all means, use it. I was merely complaining about referring to the project as such. There's also this: http://go-lang.cat-v.org/go-search http://go-lang.cat-v.org/go-search
  - markatto 15y ago
    'golang' seems to be what people are using.
  - aflott 15y ago
    go lang <thing-I'm-after> works quite well for me
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- 0xABADC0DA 15y ago
  I suppose you fail to see the irony in complaining about me writing "Google Go" because "Go" is an unsearchable name and then answering how to search for it with a custom search engine, needed because the name is unsearchable. Not to mention that ctrl-f doesn't support regular expressions so no ctrl-f "\<Go\>". I only use that construction with ambiguous or unsearchable names (for instance I would also say Google Maps). I don't think I am along in using this form and I feel it is appropriate to refer to Google Go this way. Frankly I fail to understand why this bothers you so much, as it clearly does. I would expect Google Go advocates to be delighted to have Google's good reputation for engineering imparted onto this language.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    The "clearing up ambiguity" thing is bullshit. Nobody is going to fail to use context clues to figure out what is meant by "Go" in this discussion. Where such disambiguation is actually needed, "Go (language)" or simply "go-lang"/"golang" is preferred. You know, since they are not incorrect. "Frankly I fail to understand why this bothers you so much, as it clearly does." It is annoying because it is incorrect, because you have been corrected multiple times, and because what you are attempting to do is transparent as hell. I, and I imagine many others, do not have a strong appreciation for botched attempts at subtlety.
    - 0xABADC0DA 15y ago
      For instance: http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/05/12/google.maps.android.gahran/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/05/12/google.maps.androi... Or: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps > It is annoying because it is incorrect Maybe some English professor, technical writer, or journalist reading this can chime in and explain how so. It seems to be the standard practice and I intend to use the best grammar and construction that I am capable of, as bad as that may be. This isn't Twitter.
      - 4ad 15y ago
        It's incorrect for the same reason Apple LLVM or Juniper FreeBSD is incorrect, and it's bullshit because in a thread about Go, people know what Go refers to. FWIW, the Windows, Plan 9, OpenBSD and NetBSD ports were done entirely by the community. AT&T C? That's even less specific than Go. What about gccgo? Google/GNU Go? What about the commercial implementations?
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
canop_fr 15y ago
I think the reasons they don't care more are 1) it mainly affects long time running applications on 32 bits machines. Fact is most production servers are (or should be) on 64 bits 2) most people (me for example) never observed such a phenomenon (and all my dev computers are 32 bits) So, that's an important problem but far from a game stopper.

4ad 15y ago

It's not Google Go, it's simply Go, there's not a single Google reference on the web page and that's intentional. Looking at your previous posts here and on Reddit I see you are a notorious anti-Google troll that adds "Google" to "Go" so that your negative posts will be associated with both Google and Go. It's absurd to call it Google Go when there's a first class GNU implementation that has been in development from the beginning, there's at least a closed source implementation and another distinct BSD license implementation in its infancy. It makes even less sense than saying Apple LLVM, Juniper FreeBSD, or AT&T C.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
burgerbrain 15y ago
The number of times people have needed to tell this guy this is staggering.
rand_r 15y ago
Any recommendation on how we should google for Go related pages?
- 4ad 15y ago
  Golang or Go programming works fine. If searching for Google Go produces meaningful results, by all means, use it. I was merely complaining about referring to the project as such. There's also this: http://go-lang.cat-v.org/go-search http://go-lang.cat-v.org/go-search
- markatto 15y ago
  'golang' seems to be what people are using.
- aflott 15y ago
  go lang <thing-I'm-after> works quite well for me
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
0xABADC0DA 15y ago
I suppose you fail to see the irony in complaining about me writing "Google Go" because "Go" is an unsearchable name and then answering how to search for it with a custom search engine, needed because the name is unsearchable. Not to mention that ctrl-f doesn't support regular expressions so no ctrl-f "\<Go\>". I only use that construction with ambiguous or unsearchable names (for instance I would also say Google Maps). I don't think I am along in using this form and I feel it is appropriate to refer to Google Go this way. Frankly I fail to understand why this bothers you so much, as it clearly does. I would expect Google Go advocates to be delighted to have Google's good reputation for engineering imparted onto this language.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  The "clearing up ambiguity" thing is bullshit. Nobody is going to fail to use context clues to figure out what is meant by "Go" in this discussion. Where such disambiguation is actually needed, "Go (language)" or simply "go-lang"/"golang" is preferred. You know, since they are not incorrect. "Frankly I fail to understand why this bothers you so much, as it clearly does." It is annoying because it is incorrect, because you have been corrected multiple times, and because what you are attempting to do is transparent as hell. I, and I imagine many others, do not have a strong appreciation for botched attempts at subtlety.
  - 0xABADC0DA 15y ago
    For instance: http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/05/12/google.maps.android.gahran/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/mobile/05/12/google.maps.androi... Or: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps > It is annoying because it is incorrect Maybe some English professor, technical writer, or journalist reading this can chime in and explain how so. It seems to be the standard practice and I intend to use the best grammar and construction that I am capable of, as bad as that may be. This isn't Twitter.
    - 4ad 15y ago
      It's incorrect for the same reason Apple LLVM or Juniper FreeBSD is incorrect, and it's bullshit because in a thread about Go, people know what Go refers to. FWIW, the Windows, Plan 9, OpenBSD and NetBSD ports were done entirely by the community. AT&T C? That's even less specific than Go. What about gccgo? Google/GNU Go? What about the commercial implementations?

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

canop_fr 15y ago

I think the reasons they don't care more are 1) it mainly affects long time running applications on 32 bits machines. Fact is most production servers are (or should be) on 64 bits 2) most people (me for example) never observed such a phenomenon (and all my dev computers are 32 bits) So, that's an important problem but far from a game stopper.