Hello,
Gregor Best wrote:
> While Uriel certainly was one of the loudest proponents of... anything
> Uriel proposed, I don't think he was the only one who found Go interesting
> and good.
I as well find Go interesting and good.
> I wouldn't use it for coreutils though, mostly because of the ridiculous
> binary size. I can live with some web application or file system or other
> long running daemon's binary being well over 6MB in size, but for something
> like `cat` or `ls`, I wouldn't want that on my system.
I've written a non-trivial program in Go, and rewrote it a year later in C.
In Go, the binary size (statically linked) was 2.9 MB - when it ran it
had a max of 3.1 MB of RAM resident.
C, of course, was better. 59 KB statically linked against musl, 600
KB resident. The runtime is faster too, but that isn't directly
comparable, as the C version uses a better algorithm.
With that said, I continue to enjoy Go. 2.9 MB is frankly not that
large, and it was fun and easy to prototype in.
To be clear - I don't support rewriting system utilities in Go. *base
are starting to look nice, and statically link down to a very small
size. I don't see any wins in rewriting these in Go.
Go:
https://github.com/bpowers/psm
C:
https://github.com/bpowers/psm2
yours,
Bobby
Received on Tue Nov 25 2014 - 23:18:39 CET