[Gluster-devel] Languages (was Re: Proposal for GlusterD-2.0)

Krishnan Parthasarathi kparthas at redhat.com
Mon Sep 8 16:59:30 UTC 2014

While the proposal for Glusterd-2.0 is doing its rounds in the devel/users lists, let me find out how the Go toolchain fares in debugging a live application and a core file, with a dash of go routines and channels for good effect :-) Shouldn't take long. I will share my experience and lets take this discussion from there. Does that make sense?


----- Original Message -----
> > Two characteristics of a language (tool chain) are important to me,
> > especially
> > when you spend a good part of your time debugging failures/bugs.
> > 
> > - Analysing core files.
> > - Ability to reason about space consumption. This becomes important in
> >   the case of garbage collected languages.
> > 
> > I have written a few toy programs in Go and have been following the
> > language
> > lately. Some of its features like channels and go routines catch my
> > attention
> > as we are aspiring to build reactive and scalable services. Its lack of
> > type-inference
> > and inheritance worries me a little. But, I shouldn't be complaining when
> > our default choice has been C thus far ;)
> If there's going to be complaining, now's the time.  Justin's kind of
> right that we don't want to be adding languages willy-nilly.  If there's
> something about a language which is likely to preclude its use in
> certain contexts (e.g. GC languages in the I/O path) or impair our
> long-term productivity, then that's important to realize.
> Unfortunately, the list of such drawbacks for C isn't exactly
> zero-length either.

More information about the Gluster-devel mailing list