alt Hacker NewsI like modern Java and agree it's a much better language than Go and an excellent platform in general. But Java will not beat Go where small and fast native executables are required. The native story for Java will remain a sad one, builds being hyper slow (aot) or resulting in huge binaries (jlink).
Replies
Beyond a certain project size, GraalVM compiles to the same binary size as Go. Many k8s projects produce binary sizes of >100MB. I think this is because LOC in Go scales poorly.
Go's real edge over Java is in memory consumption, not in performance or binary size. Yet, this is also mostly true at the small-scale level. The edge again disappears for large projects needing large heaps.
Small and fast native executables sounds more like a niche than a real market. Don't get me wrong: really nice to have, but a raison d'etre?
You mean like those 300MB that need to be compressed with upx for distribution, like some Go projects?
If one needs a small and fast executable, then Rust should be used, not Go. I know a company that wished they would use Rust, not Go, for their services as poor Go performance and GC spikes made it a big headache.