Re: Re: go support (was: Best place to discuss other lightweight libraries?)

[Rich Felker <dalias@aerifal.cx>]

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 03:37:36PM +0200, John Spencer wrote:
> 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.

Storage space, yes. RAM, no. It's read-only mapping so it doesn't
consume commit charge, and it won't consume physical memory either
except for the parts that get paged in. In reality it might still use
less RAM than a dynamic-linked program, especially one linked with
glibc or with multiple shared libraries.

Rich