<story><title>A new ProtoBuf generator for Go</title><url>https://vitess.io/blog/2021-06-03-a-new-protobuf-generator-for-go/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>jupp0r</author><text>Using CPU utilization as a performance metric can be extremely misleading. My favorite article on the subject is from Brendan Gregg:&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.brendangregg.com&amp;#x2F;blog&amp;#x2F;2017-05-09&amp;#x2F;cpu-utilization-is-wrong.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.brendangregg.com&amp;#x2F;blog&amp;#x2F;2017-05-09&amp;#x2F;cpu-utilization-...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;A much better way to test the influence of the new compiler would be to test the actual throughput at which saturation is achieved (which is what the benchmark in the C++ grpc library measure to assess their performance).</text></comment>
<story><title>A new ProtoBuf generator for Go</title><url>https://vitess.io/blog/2021-06-03-a-new-protobuf-generator-for-go/</url></story><parent_chain></parent_chain><comment><author>jen20</author><text>I&amp;#x27;m not sure that the phrasing in the article is particularly fair:&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; The maintainers of Gogo, understandably, were not up to the gigantic task.&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#x27;m 99% sure they are &amp;quot;up to&amp;quot; (as in &amp;quot;capable of&amp;quot;) doing so, they are just not &amp;quot;up for&amp;quot; it (as in, &amp;quot;will not do it&amp;quot;).</text></comment>