Go: Google's Plan9 refugees are staging a breakout

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > The Cavern of COBOL > Go: Google's Plan9 refugees are staging a breakout

Xik: Mar 10, 2011; Dinosaur Gum

What is the benefit of using a

code:

map[string]SomeStruct

code:

map[string]*SomeStruct

Or put another way: Why bother with the mental gymnastics of deciding if the struct is "large enough" to replace it with pointers to the struct and just always do so? Is there some overhead to resolving the pointer compared to not doing so?

# ¿ Feb 11, 2019 00:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 11, 2024 23:47

Xik: Mar 10, 2011; Dinosaur Gum

Joda posted:

In terms of raw performances, a value map is probably faster than a reference map on iteration or repeated access due to lower rate of cache aliasing for objects contiguous in memory

Ok, so as a general rule if you just plan to frequently read from a map of immutable structs then there are benefits to just using a value map. Otherwise mutating the map or the structs themselves use pointers?

# ¿ Feb 11, 2019 01:06

Xik: Mar 10, 2011; Dinosaur Gum

Linux Nazi posted:

pre-write structs to deal with the dozens, sometimes hundreds of different responses? By literally writing dozens, sometimes hundreds of structs? Really?

Yeah this is what is done in statically typed languages in my experience. Tooling usually makes it easier, like in C#/VS you can just import a huge json structure and it'll create all the classes for you. A couple of refactoring commands later they are all in seperate files with correct formatting and naming conventions applied.

This probably comes down to personal preference but I would for sure prefer a stack of structs over a map of interface{}'s.

# ¿ Jul 10, 2020 06:25

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > The Cavern of COBOL > Go: Google's Plan9 refugees are staging a breakout