News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Go: What We Got Right, What We Got Wrong by unscaled on Friday January 05, 2024 @01:19AM (#38876303)
I'm not sure what you were meaning by "it".

The main domain the original team behind Go were aiming at was clearly network software, especially servers.

But there was no consensus whether kernel could be a goal one day. Rob Pike originally thought Go could be a good language for writing kernels, if they made just a few tweaks to the runtime[1], but Ian Lance Taylor didn't see real kernels ever being written in Go[2]. In the pre-release versions of Go, Russ Cox wrote an example minimalistic kernel[3] that can directly run Go (the kernel itself is written in C and x86 Assembly) - it never really went beyond running a few toy programs and eventually became broken and unmaintained so it was removed.

[1]: https://groups.google.com/g/golang-nuts/c/6vvOzYyDkWQ/m/3T1D...

[2]: https://groups.google.com/g/golang-nuts/c/UgbTmOXZ_yw/m/NH0j...

[3]: https://github.com/golang/go/tree/weekly.2011-01-12/src/pkg/...

Re:Go: What We Got Right, What We Got Wrong by yencabulator on Friday January 05, 2024 @05:39PM (#38886012)
You might like Biscuit: https://github.com/mit-pdos/biscuit

It was specifically written to measure the performance overhead of a high-level language in kernel, so it explicitly makes the same design choices as Linux: monolithic, POSIX-compatible.

Results look pretty good.