> Sure, you're saying that it won't be as performant.
I mean, I expect it won’t be, but that wasn’t really my point, no.
What I wanted to say is thet I expect the comparison to be interesting: I might not find Go’s particular brand of simplicity attractive, but I like simple designs in general, and Go’s GC is much less involved than OpenJDK’s one while still having received some tuning—it’s neither a weekend toy nor a multi-programmer-century monster. And it’d be interesting to see how much the simpler design really loses to the scariest monster of them all.
> And that' true. IDK if you noticed, but there's no JIT either.
That might have been interesting in a general comparison of Java VMs, but I’m concerned with GCs and in that light it’s not. It could be that a slow VM is so much slower that the GC difference gets lost in the noise, but given an actually bad GC situation can lock up the mutator for literal seconds I expect there will be a meaningful comparison independent of the rest of the VMs.
>> can we please stop pretending C and C++ are in any way close?
> If we also pretend we don't know why it was named C++.
Marketing gimmick? I’m absolutely fine ignoring people who try to suggest things which are not true through manipulative branding. I don’t feel guilty about that.
To be clear, there absolutely is C-ish C++ in the world, and even if it’s not a lot relatively speaking it’s still a lot of code just because of how much C++ there is overall. And if C-ish code was the mainstream of the language, I’d be fine with this commingling. But it’s not, and neither is it the style the language’s designers are using as their benchmark. That’s been the case for at least a decade. So, no, I don’t think C/C++ is any more justified than, I don’t know, C/C#.
Finally, the name was chosen not only very early in C++ time but actually fairly early in C time as well. When C++ was named, C didn’t even have function prototypes! (Necessarily, as it copied those from C++.) I just don’t see why it matters what the Stroustrup’s intentions were when he chose the name in 1982. A lot has changed in forty years.
And that' true. IDK if you noticed, but there's no JIT either.
---
> can we please stop pretending C and C++ are in any way close?
If we also pretend we don't know why it was named C++.