News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Conc: Better Structured Concurrency for Go. Parent comment

Re:Conc: Better Structured Concurrency for Go by morelisp on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @05:59PM (#34346304)
Since the Go 1.14 optimizations I don't believe I've found a single case where `X(); defer Unx()` has been worse.

Unfortunately this was not the case before 1.14, so there's a lot of "middle-aged" code floating around setting a bad example.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Conc: Better Structured Concurrency for Go by klodolph on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @06:01PM (#34346334)
Old habits die hard. For what it’s worth, the bugs I saw were long before the 1.14 release. Somewhere around 1.7 or something.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Conc: Better Structured Concurrency for Go by morelisp on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @06:02PM (#34346348)
Agreed - it's also not nearly as clear for `ctx, cancel := ...; defer cancel()` and I see that reflex in a few places where it's not only often much less efficient, but logically wrong / less safe.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Conc: Better Structured Concurrency for Go by klodolph on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @06:06PM (#34346402)
What issues do you see with defer cancel()?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Conc: Better Structured Concurrency for Go by preseinger on Wednesday January 11, 2023 @06:28PM (#34346591)
I think the OP is saying defer cancel() is correct, and the stuff people would do to avoid it are the things that are bad.
[ Parent | on HN ]