[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5177E020.9000706@barfooze.de>
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:37:36 +0200
From: John Spencer <maillist-musl@...fooze.de>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: go support (was: Best place to discuss other lightweight libraries?)
On 04/24/2013 01:48 PM, Kurt H Maier wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 01:18:43PM +0200, Daniel Cegiełka wrote:
>>
>> btw. has anyone used go with musl?
>>
>
> Go ships its own libc, which I'm fairly certain it depends on. It's
> also not suitable as a system programming language and they dropped that
> claim from their propaganda some time ago.
correct, the go runtime is *very* heavy, and it's always linked statically.
this adds ~ 1.5MB to any binary (at least on x86_64).
that's about equivalent to the bloat imposed by the C++ stdlib.
on the suckless page, there's something written about plans to migrate
the coreutils functionality to go, this seems like an insane plan if
even dead-simple tools like cat will eat 1.5 MB of your RAM and storage
space.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
