[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Coroutines and Go
- From: steve donovan <steve.j.donovan@...>
- Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 14:15:10 +0200
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 2:01 PM, David Given <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> func (p *ByteSlice) Write(data byte) (n int, err os.Error)
That is nasty...
> And it compiles into real machine code, which is a huge plus; ix86,
> amd64 and ARM, too. I don't know what the code is like, though.
Well, Mike will probably be able to run rings around it in a few months ;)
> But IMO there's nothing here that makes a compelling reason to switch to
> Go from my current mix of C and Lua.
Well, that's it; it is a classic mixture. As a Slashdot poster put
it, I "lack the mental bandwidth to jump on another bandwagon"
> Unless it's doing something clever with asynchronous I/O, it'll need to
> allocate a new system thread for every blocked coroutine.
My understanding is that any coroutines on the blocked thread get
moved onto a non-blocked thread, which does not sound too
> People may also find Issue #9 on their bug tracker amusing:
"I propose this name : IHAUTNF*M*PL as the formal, official name. For day-to-day
activities we could use "Issue 9". ;-) "
Really, Go is a silly name. For instance, Boo is another
well-engineered language from Brazil, but most people won't get beyond
the name. In short, there are so many PLs that they're starting to
stand on each others' feet.