Some comments were asking why early Java's GC wasn't this bad even though it was conservative. The reason is that Java can't take references to fields of an object, so the data mistaken as a pointer has to actually point to an object header. In Google Go you can take a reference to a field, locking the whole object, so the faux pointer can point to any field as well (or in this probably any location in the object). Not exactly the wisest choice in semantics, as they are seeing now that it complicates the GC.
It's absurd to call it Google Go when there's a first class GNU implementation that has been in development from the beginning, there's at least a closed source implementation and another distinct BSD license implementation in its infancy.
It makes even less sense than saying Apple LLVM, Juniper FreeBSD, or AT&T C.
There's also this: http://go-lang.cat-v.org/go-search
I only use that construction with ambiguous or unsearchable names (for instance I would also say Google Maps). I don't think I am along in using this form and I feel it is appropriate to refer to Google Go this way.
Frankly I fail to understand why this bothers you so much, as it clearly does. I would expect Google Go advocates to be delighted to have Google's good reputation for engineering imparted onto this language.
"Frankly I fail to understand why this bothers you so much, as it clearly does."
It is annoying because it is incorrect, because you have been corrected multiple times, and because what you are attempting to do is transparent as hell. I, and I imagine many others, do not have a strong appreciation for botched attempts at subtlety.
> It is annoying because it is incorrect
Maybe some English professor, technical writer, or journalist reading this can chime in and explain how so. It seems to be the standard practice and I intend to use the best grammar and construction that I am capable of, as bad as that may be. This isn't Twitter.
FWIW, the Windows, Plan 9, OpenBSD and NetBSD ports were done entirely by the community.
AT&T C? That's even less specific than Go. What about gccgo? Google/GNU Go? What about the commercial implementations?
When referring to a friend named "Edward" in a text to another friend planning Edward's surprise birthday party, you can probably refer to him as "Ed" or "Edward". You definitely don't need to refer to him as "Edward (Parent's SSN:12345...)" or "Edward (Philip's Son)". While these latter forms are less ambiguous (and more searchable, to boot), the context is more than sufficient to disambiguate.
Yes, and then we see:
Give me a fucking break. You are clearly not worth engaging in discussion; I'm done.
1) it mainly affects long time running applications on 32 bits machines. Fact is most production servers are (or should be) on 64 bits
2) most people (me for example) never observed such a phenomenon (and all my dev computers are 32 bits)
So, that's an important problem but far from a game stopper.