It runs fine. It is perhaps a bit pricey for a 200MHz system, I'd certainly focus on having only a few of them and doing most of my work by looping over some sort of user-defined tasklet (or, in other words, "standard game architecture"), but it's not like Go requires multiple CPUs to work at all.

I didn't say it would not run and I am happy that Go is being used in gaming like this. But it's like buying a Koenigsegg and using to to drive into your near by grocery store as concurrency is at the heart of Go and having it run on a single core, or rather, i assume, thread, is not the best use case for it.

I'm actually not a big fan of people who recite "concurrency is not the same as parallelism" like a mantra because I don't think it's anywhere near as orthogonal as those people think. But then, that's also largely because multicore is the norm now, rather than some bizarre exception. In a single core case, it is still true. Goroutines are just a different way of achieving async functionality, in a way probably a lot more convenient than the actual code of the time had, albeit at a bit of a performance penalty.

There was a period of time towards the beginning of Go when you could get some small performance advantages for certain tasks by locking the runtime to one goroutine at a time. They've long since addressed that, but there was a time when there were people writing Go code and deliberately limiting it to one execution context at a time.

"concurrency is not the same as parallelism" is a "mantra" exactly because most people are unable to distinguish between them and/or understand the meaning. maybe not nowadays, but go back a decade and that was definitely the case.

Paging Mythbusters

Huh?

Wouldn't it suit Go over some other architecture, because of goroutines being in userspace, the single CPU is effectively multithreaded when using Go

Most Go code on Kubernetes runs on a single core.