News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Fuchsia Programming Language Policy. Parent comment

Re:Fuchsia Programming Language Policy by rob74 on Tuesday February 25, 2020 @04:03AM (#22411785)
Full quote:

> Con: The Fuchsia Platform Source Tree has had negative implementation experience using Go. The system components the Fuchsia project has built in Go have used more memory and kernel resources than their counterparts (or replacements) the Fuchsia project has built using C++ or Rust.

I wonder if they had other negative experiences beside the higher resource usage? Because it's hardly surprising that a garbage-collected language should have higher resource usage than C++/Rust. They could have still supported it for app development however - but it seems they took a "there can only be one" approach and went for Dart instead.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Fuchsia Programming Language Policy by pjmlp on Tuesday February 25, 2020 @05:51AM (#22412202)
Supporting Go for app development would mean having to design a generics free API.

Also most likely why Android will never support Go officially.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Fuchsia Programming Language Policy by terminaljunkid on Tuesday February 25, 2020 @09:38AM (#22413528)
Generics Free, No exception handling, also hard to support to shared libraries.

That's more cost than benefit.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Fuchsia Programming Language Policy by jstimpfle on Tuesday February 25, 2020 @10:10AM (#22413750)
> also hard to support to shared libraries

why?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Fuchsia Programming Language Policy by thu2111 on Tuesday February 25, 2020 @02:43PM (#22416603)
Go doesn't really have a standard/stable ABI. The way you include one module inside another is by doing what amounts to a big #include on the source code.
[ Parent | on HN ]