News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Go vs. Crystal Performance by recursivecaveat on Tuesday June 23, 2020 @12:53PM (#23616584)
Go sacrifices basically every other GC metric to minimize average pause times. Sortof a 'if you can't succeed, redefine success' mentality if you will.
Re:Go vs. Crystal Performance by sharpy on Tuesday June 23, 2020 @01:17PM (#23617027)
That's not necessarily a bad thing for writing web services. I used to spend a fair bit of time tuning JVM to achieve acceptable tail latencies for Java services, not to mention once in a while, they would need to be tuned again... Not so with Go.
Re:Go vs. Crystal Performance by apta on Tuesday June 23, 2020 @08:12PM (#23622183)
Java now has two low latency collectors: ZGC and Shenandoah.
Re:Go vs. Crystal Performance by jashmatthews on Tuesday June 23, 2020 @06:40PM (#23621280)
The Go GC and the JVM GCs are built within very, very different constraints.

Since most short-lived allocations in Go are stack-allocated, the cost of adding a read-barrier and branching on every heap access is more expensive than the potential gain from bump-pointer allocation.