So they are already not using that feature in their C++ code today.
https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Exceptions
403 karma · joined August 14, 2017
So they are already not using that feature in their C++ code today.
https://google.github.io/styleguide/cppguide.html#Exceptions
If there was a theme across his books - he was always concerned with the nature of betrayal. "Love is whatever you can still betray". Betrayal of country, of a spouse, and even of a parent.
One important reason for the growth is the explosive increase in 4G connectivity in the last 4 years, which has data usage on mobile see a compound average growth of 93% to become the highest in the world at 11.2 GB per user / month. The rates are almost laughably cheap, at around 0.20 USD/GB.
COVID has also driven more recent growth because people don't want to handle cash.
The CAG is a very different body - it is much more independent of government, and did raise issues around 2G spectrum allocation and many other areas during Congress time. I mean, the UPA had a minister running an entire TV station out of BSNL lines running to his home, so really it was pretty blatant and hard not to catch.
We should not confuse this type of corruption with doing favors to business which does not show up in government books, and is not easy for CAG to catch.
In brief, they are following a process of stripping Go to the most basic possible syntax, and then adding generics (Featherweight). Then they will add more features back and build up to the full language, ending with Cruiserweight where channels will be addressed.
The generics proposal builds on interfaces rather than contracts. Wadler sees Go occupying a unique space in terms of supporting "open supertypes" in the sense that in Go we do not have to declare a struct to be of a particular interface type it is automatically derived based on the methods defined on the struct. This allows a proposal which allows Go to be extended tp solve the "expression problem" first defined by Wadler in 98.
I really hope these beautiful ideas turn out to be workable - I am sure Go will gain immensely if they are well thought out.
Subsequently a recent study in the US has said that it has no positive effect. Seems to be a dead end at the moment.
But India has a federal structure, different states may have different policies. It is pointless to make one statement about the whole country, especially when the numbers are coming from states, not the center.
Seen in this light, this is depressingly familiar and universal. Seemingly strange actions basically necessiated because of bureaucratic inflexibility.
And Jio is the bad guy for going up against the incumbents with a risky, but smart strategy of investing in the latest technology.
The reality is that there was no other way to match the incumbents except by growing the customer base quickly - as all other competitors have found. As a consumer i am very happy Jio did what it did, and I bet that no matter what happens, I will never pay as much for data as i was paying before Jio came.
Yes - the incumbents (Vodafone, Airtel) have suffered a loss of market share and revenues / profits. Serves them right for keeping data rates high and not investing in modern technology when they had the money and market share to do so. I am sure customers in other markets would wish for real competition like this.
So you can get some of the conveniences of inheritance. The behaviour is of course different, because the composed member has no way of knowing the identity of the including struct.
Perhaps here the author is talking of a different type of "lotus-eater" - one who has become comfortable not taking risks, and live in the comfort of their company perks and just coast along without striving hard. Their day of reckoning may come if they get fired and suddenly find they have lost the knack of living in a world without these perks and strewn with risks.
I think this should be read as a person's own story of what compels them to live as they do, and not as a judgement on other people who choose to make different life choices.
My own viewing of Mona Lisa left me a little underwhelmed as well, though i have always found sculpture attracts me more than paintings. To each his own.
Memory footprint : It says fiber user stack is 1 MB and so fibers have comparable memory footprint to threads. This is not true for goroutines which typically use a 4K stack.
Context switching overhead : gives numbers for architecture, but goroutines do not use the expensive switching instructions listed in the paper. Instead golang basically saves just the PC, SP and DX registers, significantly reducing the overhead.
Dangers of N:M model : The dangers mentioned of corrupting memory etc is specific to C++ libraries and do not apply to golang.
Dangers of the 1:N model do not apply to goroutines either.
My conclusion from the paper is as follows : Fibers are bound to fail as an OS feature, or as a library. To make fibers work you need to do what golang does i.e. make it part of the language with compiler support to reduce the context switching overhead and the memory footprint. You will however, pay a price in higher FFI cost. That may be a tradeoff which may or may not work for you, depending on the nature of your application.
From : https://codeburst.io/why-goroutines-are-not-lightweight-thre...
"In Go, this means only 3 registers i.e. PC, SP and DX (Data Registers) being updated during context switch rather than all registers (e.g. AVX, Floating Point, MMX)"
Perhaps a better title would be "Fibers require compiler / language support to be viable"