The problem with this is as I understand it is that if GC turns out to be a problem for your particular application, you can’t get rid of it. You can only change GC strategies (language/runtime permitting). You can’t fully optimize away GC overhead.
You can avoid GC programming in GC'd language (we have over 40 years of data on how to do that!), but you can't retrofit GC onto non-GC language and get full benefit (though Boehm GC is still going to make your C/C++ program better for all parts that use naive malloc/free scheme)
> manages to get within 5-15% of a traditional kernel for the things they measured. That is impressive.
Top comment from the linked thread.
This is a bit out of context. 5-15% in any measurements to mainstream software is too easy. Even if it's operating system. We all know that.
This is why almost any papers that compare a research project's products with a mainstream production one in terms of performance is usually just for establishing context than actually comparison.
Tl;dr: We coded a kernel mostly in Go. It worked OK for what we tried.
Calling Go "high-level" is absurd. Apparently the authors are using the word in place of "garbage-collected", as if that had anything to do with a level. Go is by quite a margin the lowest-level obligate-GC language I know of. (That does not, by the way, mean I think it is "bad".)
[+] [-] KerrAvon|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] p_l|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|4 years ago|reply
The benefits and costs of writing a POSIX kernel in a high-level language - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18171447 - Oct 2018 (96 comments)
[+] [-] chakkepolja|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bigcat123|4 years ago|reply
Top comment from the linked thread.
This is a bit out of context. 5-15% in any measurements to mainstream software is too easy. Even if it's operating system. We all know that.
This is why almost any papers that compare a research project's products with a mainstream production one in terms of performance is usually just for establishing context than actually comparison.
[+] [-] gandalfgeek|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ncmncm|4 years ago|reply
Calling Go "high-level" is absurd. Apparently the authors are using the word in place of "garbage-collected", as if that had anything to do with a level. Go is by quite a margin the lowest-level obligate-GC language I know of. (That does not, by the way, mean I think it is "bad".)
[+] [-] 0xTJ|4 years ago|reply
Some people go as far as to say that C is a high-level language, but I find that ridiculous.