A comparison of three programming languages for a full-fledged next-generation sequencing tool
Comparing C++17, Java, and #golang:
"Results: The Go implementation performs best, yielding the best balance between runtime performance and memory use. "https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/558056v1?rss=1 …
-
-
>They said: Other mature programming languages with support for reference counting include Objective-C, Swift, and Rust. However, in its algorithm... requires an atomic compare-and-swap on recnt pointers, which does not exist in those languages, but exists in C++17. Is it true?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Hmm it's interesting because
@rustlang definitely has a really low runtime footprint, not garbage collected and has robust concurrency control and sync...so one could use good old mutexes, Reference Counters or even higher level Atomic Reference Counters and message passing.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/sync/atomic/struct.AtomicPtr.html#method.swap … ? (I didn’t read the paper, but we should have all the same atomics as C++)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
