On Sat, 2015-08-22 at 07:30 +0000, rsw0x via Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: > […] > > because Go is not a general purpose language.
Not entirely true. Go is a general purpose language, it is a successor to C as envisioned by Rob Pike, Russ Cox, and others (I am not sure how much input Brian Kernighan has had). However, because of current traction in Web servers and general networking, it is clear that that is where the bulk of the libraries are. Canonical also use it for Qt UI applications. I am not sure of Google real intent for Go on Android, but there is one. > A concurrent GC for D would kill D. Go programs saw a 25-50% > performance decrease across the board for the lower latencies. They also saw a 100% increase in performance when it was rewritten, and a 20% fall with this latest rewrite. I anticipate great improvement for the 1.6 rewrite. I am surprised they are retaining having only a single garbage collector: different usages generally require different garbage collection strategies. Having said that Java is moving from having four collectors, to having one, it is going to be interesting to see if G1 meets the needs of all JVM usages. > D could make some very minor changes and be capable of a > per-thread GC with none of these performance drawbacks, but > nobody seems very interested in it. Until some organization properly funds a suite of garbage collectors for different performance targets, you have what there is. -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
