This blog post kinda internally matches our upgrade to std::futures and tokio 0.2, away from futures 0.1.
This blog post kinda internally matches our upgrade to std::futures and tokio 0.2, away from futures 0.1.
It would be interesting to see what a more modern Go would do given there have been a bunch of tail latency GC improvements since your older 1.9 Go version... and in an ideal world, it would be nice to file an issue on the tracker if you were still seeing this.
(Maybe that ends up later helping another one of your Go services, or maybe it just helps the community, or maybe it’s a topic for another interesting blog...).
In any event, thanks for taking the time to write up and share this one.
The timelines don’t appear to fit
It would still be interesting to see them post how go > 1.12 would do since it no longer has stop the world garbage collection.
By choosing rust you will suffer a great deal of the limitations of it's poor, not production ready, ecosystem. I'm not even talking about the immaturity of the async await support.
We are willing to adopt early technologies we think are promising, and contribute to or fund projects to continue to advance the ecosystem. Yes, this means the path less traveled, but in the case of rust (and in the past Elixir, and even React Native) we think the trade offs are worth it.
Also the tokio team uses Discord for their chat stuff, so it's nice to pop in to be able to ask for and offer help.
Why do you think that? Seems like Rust is a great choice for this type of high performance work.
It is doubtful that this will improve, much, without breaking changes to the language. The range of code over which type inference operates, or at least programmers' reliance on it, would need to contract by quite a lot. There would be Complaints.
Besides, I am willing to bet idiomatic rust is 2x-10x faster than idiomatic kotlin.
But can I not have it?
The one that is 100% more mature than the Java async/await support?