The State of Go: Where we are in February 2016
talks.golang.org
The State of Go: Where we are in February 2016
1–10 of 224 posts
Re: The State of Go: Where we are in February 2016
#2The Go runtime is really starting to look sexy. 20 ms GC pauses on 200+ GB heaps!
I remember a thread discussing a pauseless GC on the dev mailing-list; where Gil Tene, of Azul C4's fame, commented on having a clear policy on safepoints from the beginning was paramount to having a good GC. It looked like the community is very biased towards doing the fundamental things well, and attracting the right people.
And on top of that we're get BLAS and LAPACK bindings from https://github.com/gonum
Re: The State of Go: Where we are in February 2016
#3Why is there a "women who go" and not a "men who go"?
EDIT: Just to be clear, I don't have nothing against women. I just think that treating them "differently" is not the solution. The moment you treat them differently you are discriminating.
Re: The State of Go: Where we are in February 2016
#4{{range . -}}
{{.}}
This seems like a bit of a hack to be honest. Would anything break if
{{range .}}
{{.}}
worked as expected?
Re: The State of Go: Where we are in February 2016
#5Why is there a "women who go" and not a "men who go"? EDIT: Just to be clear, I don't have nothing against women. I just think that treating them "differently" is not the solution. The moment you treat them differently you are discriminating.
everybody goes.
Re: The State of Go: Where we are in February 2016
#6Why is there a "women who go" and not a "men who go"? EDIT: Just to be clear, I don't have nothing against women. I just think that treating them "differently" is not the solution. The moment you treat them differently you are discriminating.
everybody goes.
then call it people who go. I'm tired of this politically correct shit.
Re: The State of Go: Where we are in February 2016
#7Why is there a "women who go" and not a "men who go"? EDIT: Just to be clear, I don't have nothing against women. I just think that treating them "differently" is not the solution. The moment you treat them differently you are discriminating.
is this kind of like "why is there a black history month and not a white history month"?
Re: The State of Go: Where we are in February 2016
#8Why is there a "women who go" and not a "men who go"? EDIT: Just to be clear, I don't have nothing against women. I just think that treating them "differently" is not the solution. The moment you treat them differently you are discriminating.
is this kind of like "why is there a black history month and not a white history month"?
Re: The State of Go: Where we are in February 2016
#9{{range . -}} {{.}} {{end -}} This seems like a bit of a hack to be honest. Would anything break if {{range .}} {{.}} {{end}} worked as expected?
It would become unusable for general-purpose text templating[0], and would either break interspersing dynamic text ("this is {{ name }}" with name=Bob would be rendered as "this isBob") within static text or would need a semantic understanding of HTML.
And even then the presence or absence of whitespace in HTML does have rendering impacts (though I don't remember one offhand — aside from linebreaks — it's been a long time since I last hit one), so the template author must be able to control it and importantly to keep whitespace present between static and dynamic items.
[0] html/template is a relatively thin layer over text/template with built-in XSS security where the original does "raw" output by default
Re: The State of Go: Where we are in February 2016
#10{{range . -}} {{.}} {{end -}} This seems like a bit of a hack to be honest. Would anything break if {{range .}} {{.}} {{end}} worked as expected?
The point is that it depends on your definition of "expected". I'd rather have my library act in a well-defined way that can be stated as succinctly as possible.