Roger Critchlow wrote:
I can see that goroutines and channels are appealing programming
abstractions, but have a hard time believing they could scale.
Seems like the more goroutines you have the more CPU cycles that
will be absorbed in switching amongst them.I could see how
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Roger Critchlow wrote:
>
>> I found it even more apparent on this pass through that the language is
>> very well built for the kind of parallel programming that I've become
>> comfortable with in erlang. That is, go makes it very easy to s
Roger Critchlow wrote:
I found it even more apparent on this pass through that the language
is very well built for the kind of parallel programming that I've
become comfortable with in erlang. That is, go makes it very easy to
spin off a new thread/process/goroutine and establish communication
Pike actually says in a few places that there could be pointers when his
examples use arrays. Declaring an array argument doesn't automatically get
you a pointer to the contents of the array, but you can get one if it's
needed. So pointers and references.
I found it even more apparent on this pa
It's interesting to see that go already is in the language shootout:
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/which-programming-languages-are-fastest.php#table
That means its pretty serious .. lota work to get the benchmark programs
written.
But they have a long way to go: above them are c/c++, jav
I thought they were good references.
;-] ;-]
--Doug
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
> Thanks, good .. er .. pointers. :)
>
> -- Owen
>
> On Jul 23, 2010, at 9:16 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
>>
>> Oh, I see Pike gave two other talks at OSCON, no video but pdfs of the
Thanks, good .. er .. pointers. :)
-- Owen
> On Jul 23, 2010, at 9:16 PM, Roger Critchlow wrote:
>
>> Oh, I see Pike gave two other talks at OSCON, no video but pdfs of the
>> slides:
>>
>> Go http://www.oscon.com/oscon2010/public/schedule/detail/15464
>> Another Go at Language Design
