News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Go’s march to low-latency GC by vvanders on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @04:02PM (#12045479)
Huh, it's almost as if the foundation of all the devices we use on a daily basis are written in some language that apparently isn't possible to write correctly.
Re:Go’s march to low-latency GC by pshc on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @04:16PM (#12045590)
They are mostly reliable (though probably still full of security holes) despite C—made possible by the millions of person-hours thrown at the problem of maintaining large C codebases.

Back then, we had no choice. We can do better.

Re:Go’s march to low-latency GC by DanWaterworth on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @05:22PM (#12045979)
Essentially all but the most used code-paths with be bug riddled. This paper [1] on finding bugs in C compilers by fuzzing is an interesting case-study.

[1] http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/4241

Re:Go’s march to low-latency GC by astrange on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @04:24PM (#12045651)
Server programming isn't even that hard. You could do it in C all day. (Just have good sandboxing for when someone finds an exploit...)

Millions of people have been writing C for games, firmware, computer systems without Internet since the 80s on, and they didn't even get software updates. If your server crashes you get a coredump and you can update anytime you want.

Re:Go’s march to low-latency GC by ssalazar on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @04:50PM (#12045816)
s/isn't possible to write correctly/is difficult to write correctly cheaply in non-trivial applications/

and you pretty much have it. Building higher-level abstractions has historically been a good thing, unless your day job is punching in opcodes.

Re:Go’s march to low-latency GC by vvanders on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @04:56PM (#12045844)
I was more poking fun at the hyperbole that it's not possible to hire anyone who writes C at a reasonable rate.
Re:Go’s march to low-latency GC by DanWaterworth on Wednesday July 06, 2016 @04:15PM (#12045576)
That's basically true.