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

Aravinda avishwan at redhat.com
Tue Sep 9 06:07:57 UTC 2014

On 09/08/2014 10:29 PM, Krishnan Parthasarathi wrote:
> 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?
One more thing to explore is Go is not free from data 


> ~KP
> ----- 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.
> _______________________________________________
> Gluster-devel mailing list
> Gluster-devel at gluster.org
> http://supercolony.gluster.org/mailman/listinfo/gluster-devel

More information about the Gluster-devel mailing list