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

Go in Go

talks.golang.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 156 posts

Re: Go in Go

#111

Post by sukilot »

boomlinde wrote: post #109
jballanc wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, C is essentially "portable assembly", so it's to be expected...

I never understood this sentiment. C isn't assembly exactly because there isn't necessarily a direct correlation between the instructions the programmer writes and the resulting machine code. To me, this is as contrived as the idea that Javascript is "LISP in Java's clothing" In what possible sense can it be described as an assembler?

There is very little difference to the machine code (traditionally, before CPUs got so complex)

Re: Go in Go

#112

Post by sukilot »

boomlinde wrote: post #109
jballanc wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, C is essentially "portable assembly", so it's to be expected...

I never understood this sentiment. C isn't assembly exactly because there isn't necessarily a direct correlation between the instructions the programmer writes and the resulting machine code. To me, this is as contrived as the idea that Javascript is "LISP in Java's clothing" In what possible sense can it be described as an assembler?

There is very little difference to the machine code (traditionally, before CPUs got so complex)

Re: Go in Go

#113

Post by rsc »

jballanc wrote: post #57
andrewchambers wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, any newer version works. You can build 1.5 with 1.5, you will be able to build 1.6 with 1.5 and 1.6.

Right, but if someone surreptitiously deleted all Go compiler binaries from the world, then we'd have to go back to compiling the C source of 1.4... Of course, that's the nature of bootstrapping! If someone managed to erase all the software from all the computers in the world, we'd have to go back and find an "Old world" Mac and use the on-die Forth compiler to write a C compiler so we could start compiling things ag…

Yes, and thanks to version control that would take, what, maybe a few minutes?

Re: Go in Go

#114

Post by rsc »

sacado2 wrote: post #99
sacado2 wrote: post #81

Does that mean cgo is away too ?

I don't know why I've been downvoted. Maybe my question wasn't clear. Since there is no need anymore for a C compiler in the Go toolset, how will the magic import "C" package work ?

If you want to use cgo you still need a C compiler for that. But it's the system C compiler (clang or gcc), not the one we deleted.

Re: Go in Go

#115

Post by sukilot »

andrewchambers wrote: post #36
Spiritus wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SSA?

Internal graph representation the compiler uses for programs. llvm uses SSA form of programs as its main low level representation. The benefits of SSA is that it enables some analysis and optimization techniques.

And writing programa in that style makes programs less bug-prone. :-)

Re: Go in Go

#116

Post by sukilot »

andrewchambers wrote: post #36
Spiritus wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SSA?

Internal graph representation the compiler uses for programs. llvm uses SSA form of programs as its main low level representation. The benefits of SSA is that it enables some analysis and optimization techniques.

And writing programa in that style makes programs less bug-prone. :-)

Re: Go in Go

#117

Post by klapinat0r »

Sorry for the noob question, but could someone help me understand how this is (conceptual) possible?

I get that you can write a program which compiles language X to machine code, e.g. how python interpreting Go to write the assembly necessary would be technically possible.

My question is, how is the compiler generated? If it's written in c, gcc -o compiler, but what is the piece I'm missing when it comes to Go compiles a Go compiler -- or is this still done as "here's the machine code, now compile the Go runtime"?

I suppose my question is a similie to "the chicken or the egg?".

Re: Go in Go

#118

Post by sukilot »

geon wrote: post #101
sagichmal wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It works fine on an iPhone. Tap the left or right side of the slide to go back or forward, respectively.

I have to hold the screen in landscape to not get the sides of the slides cropped off, and then I still get the address bar covering the headline after each new slide load, unless I tilt the phone to portrait and back for each slide. Horrible.

The Go project philosophy emphasizes simplicity of development over end-user usability.

Much like HackerNews website implementation, actually.

Re: Go in Go

#119

Post by haberman »

Zikes wrote: post #107
haberman wrote: post #106

There is no slide about writing the GC in Go. How do you write a GC in a GC'd language?

Slide #9 mentions they use the unsafe package in the GC to deal with pointers as raw bits.

But does the GC run on the GC's own runtime data?

Can the GC be interrupted by itself if it takes too long or uses too much memory?

It seems like there are several things about the GC that would need to be special-cased, since the GC is implicitly invoked by the runtime.

Re: Go in Go

#120

Post by coldtea »

geon wrote: post #101
sagichmal wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It works fine on an iPhone. Tap the left or right side of the slide to go back or forward, respectively.

I have to hold the screen in landscape to not get the sides of the slides cropped off, and then I still get the address bar covering the headline after each new slide load, unless I tilt the phone to portrait and back for each slide. Horrible.

Just use your two fingers to slightly zoom out one slide, and you won't have the address bar covering the headline after that.
Post reply on HN