Gary Willoughby: "Why Go's design is a disservice to intelligent programmers"

[via Digitalmars-d-announce]

On Friday, 27 March 2015 at 10:37:01 UTC, Russel Winder wrote:
> The question is though what should happen in D. If Vibe.d 
> fibres are a
> single threaded system, then they are not suitable for the 
> actor,
> dataflow, CSP implementation needed in D since that must sit on 
> a kernel
> thread pool where each lightweight thread is animated by 
> whichever work
> stealing kernel thread comes along. Erlang, Go, GPars, Quasar, 
> etc. all
> have different solutions to the problem of thread pools and task
> switching since the context is all important.

Yes, I agree that  the question is what should happen in D. But 
the claim was that D provides everything Go does and there is 
only a tiny scheduler that is missing. I don't think D benefits 
from these claims. Benchmark D thoroughly against Go before 
making claims or just give Go credit for being better in some 
areas.

If it was up to me then co-routines would be ripped out of the 
language. They are a cross cutting feature that makes significant 
optimizations and improvements difficult or impossible.