Replacing C

[Eric S. Raymond]

Kurt Roeckx <kurt at roeckx.be>:
> On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 09:48:09AM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> > On the other hand, I don't consider requiring a runtime to be an
> > *intrinsic* disqualifier.  The real question is, in my view, the
> > 95th-percentile length of latency-inducing stop-the-world stalls.
> > If it's below 100 microseconds that is almost certainly good enough.
> 
> I guess this is my biggest concern with some of the newer
> languages that at least some of them can have large and
> unprediticable latencies, and latency is something we do care
> about.

I think you are perfectly right to be concerned about that.  It's
certainly quite high on *my* worry list. It's one of the reasons I'm
not going near interpreted languages with high-latency GC, like Java.

>            100 microseconds seems acceptable for things over the
> internet, but I guess I expect better than that for over LAN where
> I expect the delay to be in that order.

Fair enough, but that's really not a NTP use case.  You want PTP for that.

Anyway, recent versions of Go are reported to do nearly two orders of
magnitude better than 100ms.  And their devteam has both the skill and the
mandate to push that down further.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>