> Sorry, but no - putting the burden on the developer to detect whether they are running in a container or not and then determine and adjust to cgroup settings is far too high an encumbrance on the service developer.
Because there’s no one way solution to this problem, the problem isn’t unique to only Go, but every GC language because you’re starving the program if there isn’t sufficient CPU Quota it will all eventually lead to CPU throttling, this isn’t really the problem of Go or any other GC language but at the OS layer, the inherent nature of containers
Secondly am pretty sure the Linux CFS does not strictly follow the CPU Quota, tho there could be something like a panic or warning, or switching to entirely different memory management just for what ? people who want 10ms ?
> ...includes support for a soft memory limit. This memory limit includes the Go heap and all other memory managed by the runtime, and excludes external memory sources such as mappings of the binary itself, memory managed in other languages, and memory held by the operating system on behalf of the Go program"
Of course it’s a runtime setting, it won’t affect other factors but you can’t say it didn’t solved anything “because there’s a GitHub issue open” Then Go runtime was unpredictable because of its ideology “CPU is unlimited but not Memory” and containers are kinda of a dynamic resource allocated but it did solve vast amount of problem dealing with kernel OOM and unpredictable GC cycles
I would be surprised if the Go team implemented it into the runtime, because some devs would love to have there own way of handling such settings so I don’t see it as an issue
We can’t just compare added features if don’t compare how backwards compatible the language is at that time I don’t know much about Java, but I wouldn’t say the same from upgrading from Go 1.9 to Go 1.19
I would say the leaders(could be the creators) of the language plays the most important role in its infancy the decisions they make defines what decisions the community are gonna make and the was what Go made right, Java been a business oriented decisions made by the community will also be business oriented
But you see nobody really wants to be “different” if there are 100 people and the first 90 went right the probability of the remaining 10 going right will be higher. Java was designed to be business oriented and I think this is why Go and Java is very different not in terms of language but the way the community makes decisions
Systems Programming is kinda generic category and it ultimately depends on the individual to define what’s system programming and what’s not, is it performance, security or access to hardware
Basically the type system, most rust projects usually don’t come near “The advanced Reason there’s rust” and if they do need that there’re hardcore libraries for that, an ecosystem like that usually suffers from exhaustion cause no dev will want to maintain just a library and this is also the good apart of rust cause it lessens the barrier into the language as the ecosystem gets bigger
You can’t just compare a library from another language, because they’re different, if all flag parsing library were inspired by Clap it’ll be a living nightmare for language that isn’t rust
Because there’s no one way solution to this problem, the problem isn’t unique to only Go, but every GC language because you’re starving the program if there isn’t sufficient CPU Quota it will all eventually lead to CPU throttling, this isn’t really the problem of Go or any other GC language but at the OS layer, the inherent nature of containers
Secondly am pretty sure the Linux CFS does not strictly follow the CPU Quota, tho there could be something like a panic or warning, or switching to entirely different memory management just for what ? people who want 10ms ?