Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:37:36 +0200
From: John Spencer <>
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 

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.