On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 8:23 PM, ron minnich <rminn...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'll happily pay the price of bigger binaries for things such as the %v > format. > > I don't write hello, world that often, or even care about its size when I do.
Hello world was just an example, please don't make a straw man out of it. If you want real programs which are bigger that I (we) actually use that will be (much) bigger in go: ls, cp rm mv cat acid, I can go on. Small programs are useful and important. There is a price to pay, and if you get something useful out of it, it may be a fair price to pay, as I said in my other e-mail, I was just stating a fact, binaries are bigger and for example replacing the minimal sets of commands of the system, this can make the minimal system at least 5 times bigger easy. > I have a hard time worrying about 1M binaries on $200 machines with > 12 GB/s memory bandwidth and 4G memory. > It's 2013. > A lot of my friends have cheap phones that run out of memory all the time. There is not a one size fits all in engineering, there are compromises and uses. Higher level programming means paying the cost of bigger binaries, that may be ok for some uses and not for others. I like writing go code, it is fun, and has a fairly high level of abstraction while letting you access the system easily (I am looking at you Java). As I said, at least from me, it was not a complaint, just a statement of a fact. I have spent quite some amount of time lately getting go working on arm in Plan 9 because I value the language. G.
