post on using go 1.5 and GC latency

Rikki Cattermole via Digitalmars-d-learn digitalmars-d-learn at puremagic.com
Sat Aug 22 03:54:44 PDT 2015


On 8/22/2015 10:47 PM, Laeeth Isharc wrote:
> On Saturday, 22 August 2015 at 09:16:32 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I didn't mean to start again the whole GC and Go vs D thing. Just that
> one ought to know the lay of the land as it develops.
>
> Out of curiosity, how much funding is required to develop the more
> straightforward kind of GCs ?  Or to take what's been done and  make it
> possible for others to use?  It needn't be a single organisation I would
> think if there are many that would benefit and one doesn't get bogged
> down in a mentality of people worrying about possibly spurious free
> rider problems.  Since the D Foundation seems under way, it seems worth
> asking the question first and thinking about goals without worrying for
> now about what seems realistic.

I believe the hardest part is finding somebody can and willing to work 
on it.
For example I'm willing but I don't know how and there are people 
willing with a job and can do it. But cannot dedicated time because of 
money.

Really it comes down to having a budget and if somebody says hey I'll do 
x, y and z features to pay them for their time as they do it.
Even if they only do one small feature which takes a week.


More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn mailing list