On 11/09/2014, at 2:51 AM, Luis Pabón wrote:
> I think the real question is, Why do we depend on core files? What does it
> provide? If we rethink how we may do debugging, we may realize that we only
> require core files because we are used to it and it is familiar to us. Now,
> I am not sayi
I think the real question is, Why do we depend on core files? What does
it provide? If we rethink how we may do debugging, we may realize that
we only require core files because we are used to it and it is familiar
to us. Now, I am not saying that core files are not useful, but I am
saying t
On 11/09/2014, at 1:47 AM, Luis Pabón wrote:
> Hi guys, I wanted to share my experiences with Go. I have been using it for
> the past few months and I have to say I am very impressed. Instead of
> writing a massive email I created a blog entry:
>
> http://goo.gl/g9abOi
>
> Hope this helps.
> Hi guys, I wanted to share my experiences with Go. I have been using it
> for the past few months and I have to say I am very impressed. Instead
> of writing a massive email I created a blog entry:
>
> http://goo.gl/g9abOi
Fantastic. Thanks, Luis!
Hi guys, I wanted to share my experiences with Go. I have been using it
for the past few months and I have to say I am very impressed. Instead
of writing a massive email I created a blog entry:
http://goo.gl/g9abOi
Hope this helps.
- Luis
On 09/05/2014 11:44 AM, Jeff Darcy wrote:
Does thi
On 09/08/2014 10:29 PM, Krishnan Parthasarathi wrote:
While the proposal for Glusterd-2.0 is doing its rounds in the devel/users
lists, let me find out how the Go toolchain fares in debugging a live
application and a core file, with a dash of go routines and channels for good
effect :-) Should
> While the proposal for Glusterd-2.0 is doing its rounds in the devel/users
> lists, let me find out how the Go toolchain fares in debugging a live
> application and a core file, with a dash of go routines and channels for
> good effect :-) Shouldn't take long. I will share my experience and lets
While the proposal for Glusterd-2.0 is doing its rounds in the devel/users
lists, let me find out how the Go toolchain fares in debugging a live
application and a core file, with a dash of go routines and channels for good
effect :-) Shouldn't take long. I will share my experience and lets take
"
> To: "Krishnan Parthasarathi"
> Cc: "Dan Lambright" , "Gluster Devel"
>
> Sent: Monday, September 8, 2014 8:14:07 AM
> Subject: Re: [Gluster-devel] Languages (was Re: Proposal for GlusterD-2.0)
>
> > Two characteristics of a language (tool chai
> Two characteristics of a language (tool chain) are important to me,
> especially
> when you spend a good part of your time debugging failures/bugs.
>
> - Analysing core files.
> - Ability to reason about space consumption. This becomes important in
> the case of garbage collected languages.
>
s like a great
> fit. I'm looking forward to giving it a spin :)
>
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Dan Lambright"
> > To: "Jeff Darcy"
> > Cc: "Justin Clift" , "Gluster Devel"
> >
> > Sent: Friday, S
y C++, Go seems like a great fit.
I'm looking forward to giving it a spin :)
- Original Message -
> From: "Dan Lambright"
> To: "Jeff Darcy"
> Cc: "Justin Clift" , "Gluster Devel"
>
> Sent: Friday, September 5, 2014 5:32:05 PM
One reason to use c++ could be to build components that we wish to share with
ceph. (Not that I know of any at this time). Also c++0x11 has improved the
language.
But the more I hear about it, the more interesting go sounds..
- Original Message -
> From: "Jeff Darcy"
> To: "Justin Clift
13 matches
Mail list logo
