News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Go 1.18. Parent comment

Re:Go 1.18 by Mawr on Tuesday March 15, 2022 @05:04PM (#30691698)
It is just an assumption on my part, I figure that the cost of pointer chasing is generally going to outweigh any disadvantages. It can also help enable optimizations, for example slices and maps that do not contain pointers do not get scanned by the GC ([1]).

[1]: https://github.com/golang/go/commit/85e7bee19f9f26dfca414b1e...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Go 1.18 by stingraycharles on Tuesday March 15, 2022 @06:13PM (#30692584)
I fully agree with your approach. The important thing is that the user now has the choice to use a pointer or not: they can always use a pointer to the optional if they want to use pointers.

Pointers to pointers are generally something you try to avoid if possible.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Go 1.18 by morelisp on Tuesday March 15, 2022 @07:12PM (#30693182)
> the user now has the choice to use a pointer or not

But any benefits of the packing are gone whether I make a pointer or not.

And either way, no nested pointers are involved. We’re not taking pointers to options in either case.

[ Parent | on HN ]