Thank you for debunking it so I didn't have to. I don't think I've ever seen someone post a low-level/concurrent data structure in Go that wasn't wildly unsound, so I assumed this was too.
But really, the premise of using a shared map with
concurrent readers and writers seems like a good generator of hard-to-reproduce
bugs. IMHO shared-nothing (when feasible) is much easier to reason about, and possibly do periodic merging of thread-local updates, but I would avoid concurrent updates entirely (in particular if 2 threads race to update the same key... that goes to deeper design issues in the application).
