HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

sambe

no profile record

comments

sambe
·8 वर्ष पहले·discuss
Well, I'm not into forcing things on others, so I can't agree with your perfect world. However, I'm more interested in what "socialized" actually means: it seems like just another phrase like "treated as public utility" that doesn't mean much to me on its own. Is this about the government taking control of the company?
sambe
·8 वर्ष पहले·discuss
Almost every public utility I've dealt with is completely dysfunctional, so I'm not sure I'd advocate that unless my real aim was to destory them (which it seems to be for some).

It's never clear to me what people even mean by this - it seems like a fashionable phrase to throw around. So I second your question - what practically speaking would happen under this scenario? I'd prefer to hear the people advocating it be explicit about what they want and why.
sambe
·10 वर्ष पहले·discuss
There's not "a lot" of guess work. It's quite clear to read that it is mostly about GC trade-offs and technologies in the general sense, not especially critical of Go's implementation. There are very few absolute claims of good/bad, if any. A poster on a Go forum admits that the latency improvement cost 20% CPU usage, and the article doesn't call this necessarily bad.

You're making a very uncharitable interpretation, and unjustifyably calling them guesses only makes it more so.
sambe
·10 वर्ष पहले·discuss
Most of the article is about GC being a set trade-offs. I don't think that's an elephant here. The official promotional wording around Go is being criticised for not acknowledging the drawbacks of the approach.
sambe
·10 वर्ष पहले·discuss
I didn't get that at all. I read two main criticisms, both of which aren't explicit in the Go implementors' claims but are strongly implied by the language and style:

1) they've solved for Go 2) this is comparatively better (almost mockingly so) than other VMs because of the advanced nature of their implemtation

The post suggest that 1) is overreaching and misleading: GC is always about trade-offs. It suggests that 2) is also false, because their implementation is not particularly advanced and just follows from the trade-offs they made in 1).

It does rather seem like over-marketing what they've done, regardless of whether it useful in many Go use-cases.