Comment on Toward Go 1.3parentComments−ithkuil12yWhy?−3JPLW12y"Not because of the missing functionality, but because you can't talk about go without somebody bringing up [the GIL]."It's better these days, but for a while it was a common point of contention.−LBarret12yit was slightly different: Anybody who wanted to try implementing a gil-less python could. The reasons of the status-quo were well explained.We only get hand-waving from the Go core devs.−ithkuil12yAdding generics to the language affects the language and reimplementing an interpreter/compiler for a language that fixes a performance issue without being incompatible are two completely different things.
Comments
Why?
"Not because of the missing functionality, but because you can't talk about go without somebody bringing up [the GIL]."
It's better these days, but for a while it was a common point of contention.
it was slightly different: Anybody who wanted to try implementing a gil-less python could. The reasons of the status-quo were well explained.
We only get hand-waving from the Go core devs.
Adding generics to the language affects the language and reimplementing an interpreter/compiler for a language that fixes a performance issue without being incompatible are two completely different things.