Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Go as an alternative to Node.js for very fast servers

bbs.studygolang.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 168 posts

Re: Go as an alternative to Node.js for very fast servers

#21

Post by bigdubs »

AndyKelley wrote: post #10

I did the benchmarks outlined at the end of the article. Summary of results: 1. Node.js v0.10.15, single worker: 46.2 seconds 2. Node.js v0.10.15, cluster 8 workers using naught: 17.2 seconds 3. Go 1.0.2, GOMAXPROCS left default: 3.5 seconds 4. Go 1.0.2, GOMAXPROCS=8: 3.7 seconds Detailed results below: 1. Node.js v0.10.15, single worker Concurrency Level: 100 Time taken for tests: 46.217 seconds Complete requests: 1…

There were significant performance increases in Go 1.10 (see:http://golang.org/doc/go1.1#performance), I would also suggest you benchmark a more current version.

Re: Go as an alternative to Node.js for very fast servers

#22

Post by zemo »

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #7

Is it possible to write Go in a functional way? Are there first class functions? Anonymous functions? If so it seems it would be possible to write highly functional code given the flexibility of interface{}

there are first class functions, and closures work the way you would expect. Since it's statically typed and there are no generics, there's no way to implement something like a left fold; you'd have to implement it on a per-type basis, but you could certainly do that. I believe the answer you're looking for is "no", but Go's functions are nothing to sneeze at. http://jordanorelli.tumblr.com/post/42369331748/function-typ...

Re: Go as an alternative to Node.js for very fast servers

#23

Post by masklinn »

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #7

Is it possible to write Go in a functional way? Are there first class functions? Anonymous functions? If so it seems it would be possible to write highly functional code given the flexibility of interface{}

> Are there first class functions? Anonymous functions?

Yes.

> If so it seems it would be possible to write highly functional code given the flexibility of interface{}

Not really, you'd have to add type assertions everywhere as go has neither generic functions nor user-defined generic types (only a handful of special-status types get to have type parameters, IIRC they're chans, arrays, slices and maps). That makes higher-order operations extremely cumbersome.

I'm also uncertain whether scalars (e.g. integral types) can be used through interface{}.

Re: Go as an alternative to Node.js for very fast servers

#24

Post by melling »

AndyKelley wrote: post #10

I did the benchmarks outlined at the end of the article. Summary of results: 1. Node.js v0.10.15, single worker: 46.2 seconds 2. Node.js v0.10.15, cluster 8 workers using naught: 17.2 seconds 3. Go 1.0.2, GOMAXPROCS left default: 3.5 seconds 4. Go 1.0.2, GOMAXPROCS=8: 3.7 seconds Detailed results below: 1. Node.js v0.10.15, single worker Concurrency Level: 100 Time taken for tests: 46.217 seconds Complete requests: 1…

How much of an advantage, if any, does Node provide because it's more "mature", or at least has been used for far longer.

For example, when I go to StackOverFlow I see that Node has far more questions asked:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/go

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/node.js

Re: Go as an alternative to Node.js for very fast servers

#25

Post by toong »

AndyKelley wrote: post #10

I did the benchmarks outlined at the end of the article. Summary of results: 1. Node.js v0.10.15, single worker: 46.2 seconds 2. Node.js v0.10.15, cluster 8 workers using naught: 17.2 seconds 3. Go 1.0.2, GOMAXPROCS left default: 3.5 seconds 4. Go 1.0.2, GOMAXPROCS=8: 3.7 seconds Detailed results below: 1. Node.js v0.10.15, single worker Concurrency Level: 100 Time taken for tests: 46.217 seconds Complete requests: 1…

Test nr 3 sends a whopping 2891 Mbytes/s over http ? I know it's localhost, but wow ?!

Re: Go as an alternative to Node.js for very fast servers

#26

Post by masklinn »

zemo wrote: post #22
MatthewPhillips wrote: post #7

Is it possible to write Go in a functional way? Are there first class functions? Anonymous functions? If so it seems it would be possible to write highly functional code given the flexibility of interface{}

there are first class functions, and closures work the way you would expect. Since it's statically typed and there are no generics, there's no way to implement something like a left fold; you'd have to implement it on a per-type basis, but you could certainly do that. I believe the answer you're looking for is "no", but Go's functions are nothing to sneeze at. http://jordanorelli.tumblr.com/post/42369331748/function-…

> you'd have to implement it on a per-type basis

Alternatively you can implement everything on interface{} and force the user of the higher-order function to use type assertions everywhere.

Re: Go as an alternative to Node.js for very fast servers

#27

Post by [deleted] »

bigdubs wrote: post #21
AndyKelley wrote: post #10

I did the benchmarks outlined at the end of the article. Summary of results: 1. Node.js v0.10.15, single worker: 46.2 seconds 2. Node.js v0.10.15, cluster 8 workers using naught: 17.2 seconds 3. Go 1.0.2, GOMAXPROCS left default: 3.5 seconds 4. Go 1.0.2, GOMAXPROCS=8: 3.7 seconds Detailed results below: 1. Node.js v0.10.15, single worker Concurrency Level: 100 Time taken for tests: 46.217 seconds Complete requests: 1…

There were significant performance increases in Go 1.10 (see: http://golang.org/doc/go1.1#performance ), I would also suggest you benchmark a more current version.

[deleted]

Re: Go as an alternative to Node.js for very fast servers

#28

Post by pcwalton »

masklinn wrote: post #23
MatthewPhillips wrote: post #7

Is it possible to write Go in a functional way? Are there first class functions? Anonymous functions? If so it seems it would be possible to write highly functional code given the flexibility of interface{}

> Are there first class functions? Anonymous functions? Yes. > If so it seems it would be possible to write highly functional code given the flexibility of interface{} Not really, you'd have to add type assertions everywhere as go has neither generic functions nor user-defined generic types (only a handful of special-status types get to have type parameters, IIRC they're chans, arrays, slices and maps). That makes hi…

> I'm also uncertain whether scalars (e.g. integral types) can be used through interface{}.

They can (and there are optimizations to avoid heap allocation in some cases when you do use them), but you still have to write downcasts everywhere.

Re: Go as an alternative to Node.js for very fast servers

#29

Post by freyr »

justincormack wrote: post #16
616c wrote: post #3

So beyond the ironic comment mentioned before with the Golang Hello world tutorial using Chinese, what is the real reason behind the Chinese following behind Go? It seems like this site confirm there must be a pretty dedicated Golang following, but I cannot figure out for the life of me why. Does anyone actually know?

There was some discussion here but no OK me seems to know more https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6161399

Your original comment:

> They seem to be making a concerted effort to make Go Chinese friendly https://code.google.com/p/go-zh/

The Chinese fork seems to be a project started by Minux. Minux (Shenghou Ma) is a Go contributer and is very active in the Go community, but he does not work for Google, as far as I know.

Re: Go as an alternative to Node.js for very fast servers

#30

Post by agentultra »

corresation wrote: post #17
616c wrote: post #3

So beyond the ironic comment mentioned before with the Golang Hello world tutorial using Chinese, what is the real reason behind the Chinese following behind Go? It seems like this site confirm there must be a pretty dedicated Golang following, but I cannot figure out for the life of me why. Does anyone actually know?

Do you mean specifically why there is a dedicated Chinese following in particular, or just in general? Go is a clean, intuitive language with a very robust supporting ecosystem and a strong concurrency model. It builds fast, small code and makes quick work of big problems. Why shouldn't there be a big following of one of the better platforms to come out in a long time?

My only gripe is its intended use as a systems programming language.

The runtime kind of makes it a silo; ie: hard to bind other languages to it through an FFI.

Of course if I am mistaken or there's something being done to address such a scenario then I will be much happier seeing more and more infrastructure code shipping in Go.

Post reply on HN