8 ms·
While this is technically true, it doesn't seem like that helpful a response to say "well you were getting benefits, just not this one". Until now you've had to
by rsc 11y ago
While this is technically true, it doesn't seem like that helpful a response to say "well you were getting benefits, just not this one". Until now you've had to know to ask for parallelism; it should have been there by default, and soon (I hope) it will be.
- jlouis 11y agoThis is, incidentally, also the Erlang default. Interrogate the system and if it is SMP capable, run with SMP enabled.
- cmelbye 11y agoOh, I agree 100%. I was just as confused as he was when I first started using Go, and I'm very excited that this change might finally happen. However, I think calling my response "technically true" is selling Go's concurrency primitives a little short. They enable a really great programming model, which makes it much easier to express certain ideas in code. And I/O-bound programs benefit even if GOMAXPROCS=1. I didn't understand that subtlety when I first started with Go, and it seems like GP commenter (and probably other HN readers) didn't either. "Concurrency is not parallelism" is very helpful in explaining that, which is why I linked to it.