Hacker News Reader

Yea, i can see that. As much as i dislike Go these days, their GC is impressive as hell. I can imagine future GC's will learn a lot from Go.

View on HN

Has it improved? Last I heard Java’s tunable GCs still have much better throughput, while Go allows stack allocation more often.

(Yes, GC tuning is painful, but better than rewriting code hoping you might end up with the same behavior.)

What do you mean by "impressive as hell"? From my (limited) understanding Go's GC is average.

I don't know this field, perhaps my bar is low because of Python lol, but Go's GC has very short GC pauses. So short that it makes non-GC'd usecases less attractive imo.

My big issue with Go's GC, or GC's in general, is consistency. Go's GC can still be variable in pause time iirc. But it's been ~3 years since i've worked in it - so maybe my memory is wrong :)

From what I understand Python uses reference counting, which is a type of garbage collection that allows you to have deterministic performance, almost no "pauses" but at the cost of performance.

About the consistency, I think that's not a GC problem in general. For example, Java's ZGC has constant pause times: https://malloc.se/blog/zgc-jdk16.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com