Go vs. D [was Re: Rust vs Dlang]

[Walter Bright]

On 3/18/2013 2:22 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-03-17 at 13:56 -0700, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 3/17/2013 3:01 AM, Russel Winder wrote:
>>> I guess this is because of the segmented stacks architecture behind the
>>> realization of Go.
>>
>> Segmented stacks have a significant performance cost to them, as well as making
>> it hard to interface to other languages. I also think that the shift to 64 bits
>> makes them obsolete anyway.
>
> I think this is possibly not the case or Go and Rust would not have gone
> this route – which is the imperative native code equivalent of what the
> functional languages and the dynamic languages do using the heap. The
> problem is to not have a single stack so that it becomes easy to manage
> 1,000+ threads within a single process.
>

That's just not an issue when you have 64 bits of address space. You can still 
have 4 billion stacks of 4 billion bytes each.