News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on The Next Step for Generics. Parent comment

Re:The Next Step for Generics by piva00 on Wednesday June 17, 2020 @04:34AM (#23549179)
Because for a long time people were trying to shove Go into use cases that before were covered by C applications. Some infrastructure has been developed in Go (Kubernetes being quite prominent) and so the overlap between systems programming and web/enterprise got muddy.

Rust can't cover the enterprise use-cases of Go the same way that Go won't ever cover what Rust can do on systems/embedded level but there is enough overlap in some cases to confuse people into trying to compare them directly.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Next Step for Generics by pjmlp on Wednesday June 17, 2020 @05:26AM (#23549472)
You mean like the USB Armory security key running Go bare metal?

https://www.f-secure.com/en/consulting/foundry/usb-armory

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Next Step for Generics by piva00 on Wednesday June 17, 2020 @07:13AM (#23550084)
I don't follow what you mean by that, care to elaborate?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Next Step for Generics by pjmlp on Wednesday June 17, 2020 @07:20AM (#23550126)
That is a use case that many would assert should be written in C, yet F-Secure decided that given the security scenario, bare metal Go was the way.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:The Next Step for Generics by piva00 on Wednesday June 17, 2020 @08:39AM (#23550655)
Ah! Yes, that is a case that I would consider could have an overlap between Go/Rust and C. Thanks for sharing it, had no idea it was implemented in bare metal Go, will check it out :)
[ Parent | on HN ]