4 ms·

I think C/C++ programmers have had their reign long enough and have shown us through the amount of utterly horrible security issues that managing memory yoursel

I think C/C++ programmers have had their reign long enough and have shown us through the amount of utterly horrible security issues that managing memory yourself is a bad idea. Go fits an important niche: stuff that doesn't have to play with the hardware directly, which is pretty much everything but the OS. I controversially consider there to be no other use for C bsaed languages these days other than at the kernel level. It's better to centralise the memory management and optimisation either into a VM or compiler. It's easier and safer to verify a compiler (mathematically or otherwise) than every memory access that you do. Due to my engineering background, I would always sacrifice performance for less risk and more reliability. I've also spent 20 years writing C and C++ so I know how horrible it is.

tjoff 14y ago
Go fits an important niche: stuff that doesn't have to play with the hardware directly, which is pretty much everything but the OS. The anything-but-the-OS-niche? I thought we had plenty of languages for that. It's better to centralise the memory management and optimisation either into a VM or compiler. It's easier and safer to verify a compiler (mathematically or otherwise) than every memory access that you do. You seem to ignore performance altogether, if you programmed in C/C++ for twenty years but don't care for performance and don't do low-level work, why have you been using C/C++? Or if you have been doing low level or performance critical work, why wouldn't you want a safer alternative for that? When you have to tune and debug your application to please the garbage collector having to deal with your own memory seems like child's play. It is much easier and safer to verify that your own memory management won't bite you than it is to be sure that your garbage collector won't eat you. (surely that depends on the context etc. but making broad claims seems to be on topic...) Right tool for the right job. C/C++ has "monopoly" on a lot of use cases (way more than any other language) and considering its issues I truly believe that a "better C/C++" is needed, way more than those 20 JVM-based languages that popup every other month. Or Go.
- eckyptang 14y ago
  The anything-but-the-OS-niche? I thought we had plenty of languages for that. We have plenty of languages, but most of them are low performance interpreted languages, have major compromises or are not architecturally sound. Go addresses a lot of those issues - more than any other language so far. You seem to ignore performance altogether, if you programmed in C/C++ for twenty years but don't care for performance and don't do low-level work, why have you been using C/C++? I don't ignore performance. There are many ways to achieve performance. I've worked on embedded systems (military, medical sector) and occasionally need direct hardware access which is where I use C/C++ and that is primarily to manipulate a device and hand off a suitable abstraction to a higher level language (with a garbage collector). When you have to tune and debug your application to please the garbage collector having to deal with your own memory seems like child's play. It is much easier and safer to verify that your own memory management won't bite you than it is to be sure that your garbage collector won't eat you. (surely that depends on the context etc. but making broad claims seems to be on topic...) That is all down to determinism. Determinism can be achieved in various simple ways. If you understand the language, you can write code that pre-allocates and reuses memory in critical sections therefore invoking no garbage collection penalty. Isolating critical sections from each other is still a problem in C/C++ if you consider the threading model that they use. Right tool for the right job. C/C++ has "monopoly" on a lot of use cases (way more than any other language) and considering its issues I truly believe that a "better C/C++" is needed, way more than those 20 JVM-based languages that popup every other month. Or Go. I'm not a fan of all "those 20 JVM-based languages" - I find them tedious and ugly. I'm the most critical person on the planet when it comes to this sort of thing. Go pretty much hits the mark. I think your complaints could be addressed with a simple extension to pause the collector therefore introducing determinism i.e: func CriticalFunc() { defer runtime.ResumeGC() runtime.PauseGC() // critical section }
  - pcwalton 14y ago
    "I think your complaints could be addressed with a simple extension to pause the collector therefore introducing determinism" I don't think that scales to multiple threads. Remember, the GC is global. With a lot of goroutines, you're going to end up delaying GC far too long if any of them can block the GC. These sorts of things are the reason why it's considered a bad idea to muck around with the GC settings in e.g. the JVM unless you really know what you're doing. The right way to avoid GC pauses in a GC'd language is to avoid generating garbage; e.g. with free lists.

tjoff 14y ago

Go fits an important niche: stuff that doesn't have to play with the hardware directly, which is pretty much everything but the OS. The anything-but-the-OS-niche? I thought we had plenty of languages for that. It's better to centralise the memory management and optimisation either into a VM or compiler. It's easier and safer to verify a compiler (mathematically or otherwise) than every memory access that you do. You seem to ignore performance altogether, if you programmed in C/C++ for twenty years but don't care for performance and don't do low-level work, why have you been using C/C++? Or if you have been doing low level or performance critical work, why wouldn't you want a safer alternative for that? When you have to tune and debug your application to please the garbage collector having to deal with your own memory seems like child's play. It is much easier and safer to verify that your own memory management won't bite you than it is to be sure that your garbage collector won't eat you. (surely that depends on the context etc. but making broad claims seems to be on topic...) Right tool for the right job. C/C++ has "monopoly" on a lot of use cases (way more than any other language) and considering its issues I truly believe that a "better C/C++" is needed, way more than those 20 JVM-based languages that popup every other month. Or Go.

eckyptang 14y ago
The anything-but-the-OS-niche? I thought we had plenty of languages for that. We have plenty of languages, but most of them are low performance interpreted languages, have major compromises or are not architecturally sound. Go addresses a lot of those issues - more than any other language so far. You seem to ignore performance altogether, if you programmed in C/C++ for twenty years but don't care for performance and don't do low-level work, why have you been using C/C++? I don't ignore performance. There are many ways to achieve performance. I've worked on embedded systems (military, medical sector) and occasionally need direct hardware access which is where I use C/C++ and that is primarily to manipulate a device and hand off a suitable abstraction to a higher level language (with a garbage collector). When you have to tune and debug your application to please the garbage collector having to deal with your own memory seems like child's play. It is much easier and safer to verify that your own memory management won't bite you than it is to be sure that your garbage collector won't eat you. (surely that depends on the context etc. but making broad claims seems to be on topic...) That is all down to determinism. Determinism can be achieved in various simple ways. If you understand the language, you can write code that pre-allocates and reuses memory in critical sections therefore invoking no garbage collection penalty. Isolating critical sections from each other is still a problem in C/C++ if you consider the threading model that they use. Right tool for the right job. C/C++ has "monopoly" on a lot of use cases (way more than any other language) and considering its issues I truly believe that a "better C/C++" is needed, way more than those 20 JVM-based languages that popup every other month. Or Go. I'm not a fan of all "those 20 JVM-based languages" - I find them tedious and ugly. I'm the most critical person on the planet when it comes to this sort of thing. Go pretty much hits the mark. I think your complaints could be addressed with a simple extension to pause the collector therefore introducing determinism i.e: func CriticalFunc() { defer runtime.ResumeGC() runtime.PauseGC() // critical section }
- pcwalton 14y ago
  "I think your complaints could be addressed with a simple extension to pause the collector therefore introducing determinism" I don't think that scales to multiple threads. Remember, the GC is global. With a lot of goroutines, you're going to end up delaying GC far too long if any of them can block the GC. These sorts of things are the reason why it's considered a bad idea to muck around with the GC settings in e.g. the JVM unless you really know what you're doing. The right way to avoid GC pauses in a GC'd language is to avoid generating garbage; e.g. with free lists.