ants VS pond

I remember doing something similar to OP recently. Goroutines also incur a bit of overhead (have to be GC'd and so on), and the same worker pool technique can be applied to them in much the same way, as seen in popular libraries like https://github.com/panjf2000/ants

The best example I can give you is https://github.com/nutsdb/nutsdb it’s great project that got me started, one thing one should know is Go is different “yep” so there’re some coding habits that may bite you in Go and the Go compiler won’t correct you, you wanna learn about optimizations, unsafe usage check out https://github.com/valyala/fasthttp (note this is deep the rabbit hole), wanna learn concurrency check out ants https://github.com/panjf2000/ants with a little aid from “Go by example” you’re good to go

conc seem similar to ant lib (https://github.com/panjf2000/ants). Is there any considerable difference between them?

But still, that looked hard to maintain, and I asked myself there has to be a better way to do this, just out of curiosity i googled and came across ants which seemed exactly right for this kind of functionality I wanted, so I converted the same function to use ants, and it became this:

You can try use this one https://github.com/panjf2000/ants We are using that as well for that purpose

Benchmarking was performed against existing golang threadpool implementations Ants and Gamma-Zero-Worker-Pool and unlimited goroutines

The readme of the project explains it very well: https://github.com/panjf2000/ants

Looks interesting, but what new concepts/features does it bring to the table compared to the already battletested ants library? Link: https://github.com/panjf2000/ants

https://github.com/alitto/pond i use this one :3

(In this case, originally the example had a workerpool package alitto/pond imported until I removed in favor of something simpler, but if I left it and didn't use and underscore then the alitto/pond library would have been a dependency of tasq too)