Go 1.11 and Beyond(docs.google.com)
docs.google.com
Go 1.11 and Beyond
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1EwuJhEHR5Trr2aXBPQajZ2Hcoh29tm_LQCpgfrCnuRk/edit#slide=id.g33148270ac_0_143
80 comments
When I think of generics i think custom data structures. Currently you are stuck with interfaces, but you can also wrap a library returning interfaces with methods operating on a specific type.
I would be interested to hear about use cases that couldn't be solved in this manner
I would be interested to hear about use cases that couldn't be solved in this manner
"Solved" by having lots of meaningless unsafe glue code. That's not a solution.
It sounds like you're going to reject proposals for generics on the grounds that "you could just cast values of type `interface{}`" unless someone can show you a situation where you can't do that. The problem is that the people who want this sort of feature don't think that's even a solution.
It sounds like you're going to reject proposals for generics on the grounds that "you could just cast values of type `interface{}`" unless someone can show you a situation where you can't do that. The problem is that the people who want this sort of feature don't think that's even a solution.
I am legitimately asking, it's not something I have personally had much issue with. If you have some compelling example, please share your experience
You can not have a custom collection class containing objects _only_ of a certain type. For example ConcurrentHashTable<Int, String>. That is something that is used every single day. It is used so frequently that Go has generic slice and map built into the language. That is, they created a language with lots of special datatypes that can not be created in normal Go because of its lack of generics instead of creating generics.
It is a bit like asking a Java-programmer to use Java 1.4.
When you ask a Java programmer, or C# programmer or Haskell programmer or Swift programmer or... what they would change in the language you do not get the answer: remove generics.
It is a bit like asking a Java-programmer to use Java 1.4.
When you ask a Java programmer, or C# programmer or Haskell programmer or Swift programmer or... what they would change in the language you do not get the answer: remove generics.
Not without either implementing it yourself or wrapping interface methods.
Go generate is like a manual step for having generics, I imagine one day soon its functionality or something similar will be part of go build.
In response to your particular example, a map plus a mutex seems sufficient.
I dig that it's a few extra lines of code, but I guess I'm looking for a really mean example.
Go generate is like a manual step for having generics, I imagine one day soon its functionality or something similar will be part of go build.
In response to your particular example, a map plus a mutex seems sufficient.
I dig that it's a few extra lines of code, but I guess I'm looking for a really mean example.
>I dig that it's a few extra lines of code, but I guess I'm looking for a really mean example.
Well, if you don't care about repeating yourself, mistakes by omission, needless boilerplate, and/or loss of type safety, then, sure, everything is possible in "a few extra lines of code" in a turing complete language...
Well, if you don't care about repeating yourself, mistakes by omission, needless boilerplate, and/or loss of type safety, then, sure, everything is possible in "a few extra lines of code" in a turing complete language...
I can not create a really mean example because Go is Turing complete. That means that everything can (with a few extra lines) be expressed in Go.
The problem with your mutex solution is at least two:
1) it is more complex
* more lines to type and read and check and thus harder to understand
* you can forget the mutex
* if you have data structures of hastables, you will have to pass mutexes around or store them together with the tables.
2) it is not nearly as performent as a lock free hash table
(edit indentation)
The problem with your mutex solution is at least two:
1) it is more complex
* more lines to type and read and check and thus harder to understand
* you can forget the mutex
* if you have data structures of hastables, you will have to pass mutexes around or store them together with the tables.
2) it is not nearly as performent as a lock free hash table
(edit indentation)
Back when Borland C++ 2.0 came out for MS-DOS, templates were still being designed.
So the first version of BIDS, Borland's C++ data structures library, used pre-processor tricks where one defined the types before including the respective data structure.
So go generate as workaround feels quite old.
So the first version of BIDS, Borland's C++ data structures library, used pre-processor tricks where one defined the types before including the respective data structure.
So go generate as workaround feels quite old.
Oddly, I have pushed back on many devs introducing generic interfaces. For library writers, they can be nice. For everyone else, they typically just get you in trouble.
So, I don't want to remove them from the language. However, I do question a large percentage is their use in everyday programming.
So, I don't want to remove them from the language. However, I do question a large percentage is their use in everyday programming.
Generics are useful all the time. That is why Go has generic Maps and slices. The question is why I am not allowed to use other generic collections.
No, generic collections are pretty much useful all of the time. Other generic things are useful when done well.
> You can not have a custom collection class containing objects _only_ of a certain type. For example ConcurrentHashTable<Int, String>.
I'll start by saying - I largely agree with you. Libraries, particularly of data structures, are the biggest weakness of Go as a language.
However, this bit is not really fair:
> When you ask a Java programmer, or C# programmer or Haskell programmer or Swift programmer or... what they would change in the language you do not get the answer: remove generics.
Much like values, language features need to be compared to each other, not evaluated in isolation.
Everyone likes loyalty, but some people value it over honesty and some value the reverse.
Everyone likes generics, but some people value faster compile times, a more simple language implementation and a lower learning curve more. Some people value it less.
I'll start by saying - I largely agree with you. Libraries, particularly of data structures, are the biggest weakness of Go as a language.
However, this bit is not really fair:
> When you ask a Java programmer, or C# programmer or Haskell programmer or Swift programmer or... what they would change in the language you do not get the answer: remove generics.
Much like values, language features need to be compared to each other, not evaluated in isolation.
Everyone likes loyalty, but some people value it over honesty and some value the reverse.
Everyone likes generics, but some people value faster compile times, a more simple language implementation and a lower learning curve more. Some people value it less.
If you value compile times (and you actually think generics make a difference, I do not) you would not make slices and hash tables generic like in Go, would you?
If you wanted a simpler language, you would not make slices and hash tables generic, would you?
If you wanted lower learning curve, you would not make special case generics would you?
If you wanted to wait, to get the perfect generic solution because a sub-optimal one is not good enough, you would not create a sub-optimal non-perfect temporal solution with special-cased generics for certain data types would you?
If you argue that I am loyal and not honest, and therefore like generics because it is used in my favorite language, I think you are wrong.
The languages I use most of the time have a huge design flaw. It is called null. But when they created Go they chose to (except in special cases) get rid of (useful) generics instead of the disaster that is null.
The problem is that Go has not learnt from other languages. It is too imperative, not expressive enough, lacking in static typing and horrible at fault handling.
If you wanted a simpler language, you would not make slices and hash tables generic, would you?
If you wanted lower learning curve, you would not make special case generics would you?
If you wanted to wait, to get the perfect generic solution because a sub-optimal one is not good enough, you would not create a sub-optimal non-perfect temporal solution with special-cased generics for certain data types would you?
If you argue that I am loyal and not honest, and therefore like generics because it is used in my favorite language, I think you are wrong.
The languages I use most of the time have a huge design flaw. It is called null. But when they created Go they chose to (except in special cases) get rid of (useful) generics instead of the disaster that is null.
The problem is that Go has not learnt from other languages. It is too imperative, not expressive enough, lacking in static typing and horrible at fault handling.
>(and you actually think generics make a difference, I do not)
It's pretty difficult for generics not to adversely affect compile times. This is especially so if you actually emit specialized code for each type.
It's pretty difficult for generics not to adversely affect compile times. This is especially so if you actually emit specialized code for each type.
>It's pretty difficult for generics not to adversely affect compile times.
Compared to what? Non having type-specific code?
Because if you manually write (or use code generation madness as some propose) that type specific code you need yourself, then the compiler will take the same time to compile it as if generics were a language feature.
Compared to what? Non having type-specific code?
Because if you manually write (or use code generation madness as some propose) that type specific code you need yourself, then the compiler will take the same time to compile it as if generics were a language feature.
The compiler also has to generate the specialized code. But I suspect that the main factor here is just that the presence of generics in a language encourages the use of generic programming to an extent that wouldn't be practical in a language without generics. Take e.g. the boost geometry library (C++). Theoretically you could write a similarly generic library in Go using code generation, and it would probably take ages to build too. Of course, no-one would actually do this.
I bet CLU generics as designed in 1971 hardware would compile quite fast on modern hardware.
Maybe. I don't know. It is pretty difficult to find examples of languages with generics that have compile times comparable to those of Go.
Easy, CLU (1971), ML (1973), Ada (1983), .NET (2003), Delphi (2007), D (2007).
Not every implementation needs to be turing complete C++ style.
Not every implementation needs to be turing complete C++ style.
I don't know anything about CLU. ML compilers are a mixed bag. OCaml (which is a different dialect, of course), has an acceptably fast compiler, but it's not near-instant like Go. Ada compilers are famous for being slow, at least historically. C# is, again, acceptably quick to compile, but not as quick as Go. I don't know about D. I've heard good things about Delphi's compile times, but no-one uses it now.
[deleted]
> At least now they've come up with a module/dependency system, which, even though a decade late, doesn't bring anything extraordinary to the table compared to what other platforms already had for ages.
I don't think you fully grasp the breakthrough that the theory behind Go modules is for dependency management in general. It vastly improves on and simplifies anything that existed in this domain before.
It's like saying Copernican heliocentrism didn't bring anything extraordinary to the table compared to Ptolemaic geocentrism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_Revolution#/media/F...
I don't think you fully grasp the breakthrough that the theory behind Go modules is for dependency management in general. It vastly improves on and simplifies anything that existed in this domain before.
It's like saying Copernican heliocentrism didn't bring anything extraordinary to the table compared to Ptolemaic geocentrism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_Revolution#/media/F...
It really does. Our codebase is very large and I'm a member of the team responsible for the build system and language tooling. Java library resolving in our repo can take 45mins from a clean build. Python is better, and we've managed to lock it down to offline only sources so libraries never update on us out of the blue. I've been a gopher since the the first announcement and I'm so excited that Russ Cox discovered a simple way to declare and resolve dependencies that avoids the SMT solver nightmare that I've seen bog down progress in every major project I've been involved in, from Ocaml and Haskell to python, java, rust and javascript (security nightmares every night here).
One of my greatest hopes is I can convince my teammates that its be worth the time investment to transition all our dependencies management ecosystems into the Minimum Version Selection algorithm.
One of my greatest hopes is I can convince my teammates that its be worth the time investment to transition all our dependencies management ecosystems into the Minimum Version Selection algorithm.
It’s a slightly simplified version of Cargo which itself is an evolution of what yarn/npm/sbt/etc are doing. This is explicitly called out in the vgo paper.
It only seems like a revolution because the previous situation in Go was such a mess. As someone that writes a lot of both Rust and Go I’m not nearly as impressed.
It only seems like a revolution because the previous situation in Go was such a mess. As someone that writes a lot of both Rust and Go I’m not nearly as impressed.
>It vastly improves on and simplifies anything that existed in this domain before.
I've read the specs and justification posts. I don't find it gives anything better (and in some ways it's worse) than what can be achieved with, e.g. cargo.
>It's like saying Copernican heliocentrism didn't bring anything extraordinary to the table compared to Ptolemaic geocentrism
Yeah, it's like saying that, with the only difference that we're actually talking about something that brought nothing extraordinary here (as opposed in the contrived example).
I've read the specs and justification posts. I don't find it gives anything better (and in some ways it's worse) than what can be achieved with, e.g. cargo.
>It's like saying Copernican heliocentrism didn't bring anything extraordinary to the table compared to Ptolemaic geocentrism
Yeah, it's like saying that, with the only difference that we're actually talking about something that brought nothing extraordinary here (as opposed in the contrived example).
What am I missing? It's a dependency declaration file.
For all the emphasis they put on stability, there is one part that doesn't seem particularly stable – on slide 32:
"Go 1.11 supports the upcoming OpenBSD 6.4 release. Due to changes in the OpenBSD kernel, older versions of Go will not work on OpenBSD 6.4."
This is, I assume, because Go makes direct syscalls rather than going through the C library. Many operating systems, including Windows, don't consider that a stable public interface.
So does this mean that older Go binaries will stop working when you upgrade the OS? I guess that would make the source compatibility extra important to them, since you must keep recompiling your old programs as you upgrade to newer a OS. (Perhaps it's also why they're dropping support for older OS versions so quickly?)
"Go 1.11 supports the upcoming OpenBSD 6.4 release. Due to changes in the OpenBSD kernel, older versions of Go will not work on OpenBSD 6.4."
This is, I assume, because Go makes direct syscalls rather than going through the C library. Many operating systems, including Windows, don't consider that a stable public interface.
So does this mean that older Go binaries will stop working when you upgrade the OS? I guess that would make the source compatibility extra important to them, since you must keep recompiling your old programs as you upgrade to newer a OS. (Perhaps it's also why they're dropping support for older OS versions so quickly?)
OpenBSD doesn't make any promises about ABI stability between releases. That means that all older binaries may stop working when you upgrade the OS, not just older Go binaries.
This might be seen as a problem, but it allows the OpenBSD devs to push the envelope of expectations and find bugs across the entire software ecosystem.
An example of this was the change to 64-bit time_t back in 2013 (talk: https://www.openbsd.org/papers/eurobsdcon_2013_time_t/ ), and evolving syscalls like pledge(2) that changed syntax between releases as the problems/benefits of a specific implementation choices were learned.
An example of this was the change to 64-bit time_t back in 2013 (talk: https://www.openbsd.org/papers/eurobsdcon_2013_time_t/ ), and evolving syscalls like pledge(2) that changed syntax between releases as the problems/benefits of a specific implementation choices were learned.
This is not related to syscall vs libc. OpenBSD 6.4 requires stacks to be mapped with MAP_STACK, so it requires a runtime change. I’m not sure how using libc would have prevented this
Ref: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/26142
Ref: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/26142
> Many operating systems, including Windows, don't consider that a stable public interface.
Windows in no way requires libc. You're right that it does require you to call their public interface dlls, but they're pretty ridiculously stable.
Windows in no way requires libc. You're right that it does require you to call their public interface dlls, but they're pretty ridiculously stable.
Windows calls their syscall wrapper ntdll.dll, not libc.so; but it's conceptually the same thing. The ntdll.dll ABI is public & stable, the underlying syscall ABI isn't. Several unixoids do the same thing, where their libc.so ABI is public & stable, but the underlying syscall ABI isn't.
One really minor, but powerful, thing I'd love to see from the Go team is a better designed documentation experience. Here's the Google-produced Github library godoc [1]; its absolutely horrendous to browse, as is any sufficiently large package. Compare that to Elixir's [2] auto-generated documentation. There's a lot of work that can go into just improving that static HTML and making it more easily grokable.
[1] https://godoc.org/github.com/google/go-github/github
[2] https://hexdocs.pm/phoenix/overview.html
[1] https://godoc.org/github.com/google/go-github/github
[2] https://hexdocs.pm/phoenix/overview.html
Hi,
godoc maintainer here. We have a lot of UI improvements coming for 1.12.
- A TOC at the top
- A sidebar for easy scrolling
- More cross-links for easy navigation.
If hotlinking comes through, that's a major improvement in itself.
Stay tuned !
godoc maintainer here. We have a lot of UI improvements coming for 1.12.
- A TOC at the top
- A sidebar for easy scrolling
- More cross-links for easy navigation.
If hotlinking comes through, that's a major improvement in itself.
Stay tuned !
I prefer godoc. It is concise and I can find faster what I am looking for.
Godoc is an excellent forcing function when it's not ignored. Designing your package's public namespace so that it looks sensible in godoc yields great results for consumers.
Godoc compensate by being more functional. The elixir example is missing links to the source code of the functions/methods etc. Godoc also generates an excerpt with all the functions/methods/types in the package.
ExDoc does not miss links to the source code. (Click on any Module/function and there should be brackets "<>" that point to the source code.) Types are also present in any module that defines them.
I've not used Elixir, but I'm surprised by the strong dislike for GoDoc. I've used Java, C#, C/C++, Python, and JavaScript and I've never found anything to be as nice as GoDoc.
In particular, Godoc is absolutely effortless. No build step in your project, no cryptic documentation syntax, no need to tell the documentation generator how to link to your dependencies' documentation pages, etc. Everything just works, and the output is quite a lot cleaner than the aforementioned as well.
No doubt there's a little room for improvement in how the text is layed out and organized, but it's still leagues better than all other documentation systems I've used. With Python (sphinxdocs) in particular, everything gets rendered into a giant page with no clues about what class's `__str__()` method I'm currently looking at.
In particular, Godoc is absolutely effortless. No build step in your project, no cryptic documentation syntax, no need to tell the documentation generator how to link to your dependencies' documentation pages, etc. Everything just works, and the output is quite a lot cleaner than the aforementioned as well.
No doubt there's a little room for improvement in how the text is layed out and organized, but it's still leagues better than all other documentation systems I've used. With Python (sphinxdocs) in particular, everything gets rendered into a giant page with no clues about what class's `__str__()` method I'm currently looking at.
That's mostly what I mean. I love godoc and the philosophy behind it; its a massive improvement over the manual documentation build steps of Java, JS, Python, etc. But even more modern languages, like Rust and Elixir, do it better. There's a lot of low-hanging UX and usability fruit to be fixed in godoc which can make the experience better.
Ah, I see. I guess I think of these UX improvements as “the last mile”, and it’s nice to have something that gets us 95% of the way there compared to everything else that makes you work to get to 40%.
Also, i’ve never found Rust’s docs to be very easy to read; maybe the complexity of the type system makes for a more challenging UX, or maybe my opinion is simply an outlier.
In any case, it’s good to know things can get even better. Thanks for sharing!
Also, i’ve never found Rust’s docs to be very easy to read; maybe the complexity of the type system makes for a more challenging UX, or maybe my opinion is simply an outlier.
In any case, it’s good to know things can get even better. Thanks for sharing!
I really prefer the Rust auto-generated documentation to both Godoc and Elixir docs.
See for example https://docs.rs/diesel/1.2.2/diesel/pg/index.html.
Godoc is too plain and almost cumbersome to read for me, while Elixir is too pretty and not so efficient in displaying the type information in my opinion.
Rust has a happy middle ground here.
See for example https://docs.rs/diesel/1.2.2/diesel/pg/index.html.
Godoc is too plain and almost cumbersome to read for me, while Elixir is too pretty and not so efficient in displaying the type information in my opinion.
Rust has a happy middle ground here.
It's funny how these things are so personal. I love Godoc, mostly because everything is on one page, with very little JS and a good, almost monochrome colour palette. At the same time, I really can't stand Rust's docs, because everything seems to get its own page, it's colours galore, and of course there is a sidebar.
The mileage does vary greatly apparently.
The mileage does vary greatly apparently.
Agreed on both your preferences and overall YMMV point.
> It's quite likely that "Go 2" == Go 1.15 or 1.16
That is Aug 2020 or Feb 2021 for generics.
That is Aug 2020 or Feb 2021 for generics.
They also hint to this in the slide 75 where they say "10 years is good".
[deleted]
Does it have generics yet?
One feature that could achieve generics, eliminated `if err != nill{}` stutter, and allow for backwards compatibility: macros
(borrowing the '@' prefix for macros from Julia)
type ConcreteStruct @macroType(int64)
val := @errReturner(file.Write(data))
and backwards compatibility is allowed by running the go2 compiler in macro-expansion-only mode that creates macro expanded Go1 compatible source.
(borrowing the '@' prefix for macros from Julia)
type ConcreteStruct @macroType(int64)
val := @errReturner(file.Write(data))
and backwards compatibility is allowed by running the go2 compiler in macro-expansion-only mode that creates macro expanded Go1 compatible source.
Macros are a cop out of language design. They mean "everybody do what you want and create your own language, we don't care anymore".
No, they solve a complex problem.
Have a look at modern web development. Because they have no macros, they wrote a bunch of tools which "compile" different domain specific languages (DSL's) to "the real stuff". Nowadays you compile pseudo HTML, pseudo CSS and JavaScript (modern style) to HTML, CSS and JavaScript (backward compatible, a.k.a. old style JS). That's insane. On the other hand, whiteout those code-transformation tools – which are called macros if they are built into the language – all those fancy and simple web-tools would not be feasible.
Ignoring macros means to me oversimplifying programming. Which results into not solving the real (meta) problem. For a while you will get away without macros/code generation, but in the long run they are inevitable.
Have a look at modern web development. Because they have no macros, they wrote a bunch of tools which "compile" different domain specific languages (DSL's) to "the real stuff". Nowadays you compile pseudo HTML, pseudo CSS and JavaScript (modern style) to HTML, CSS and JavaScript (backward compatible, a.k.a. old style JS). That's insane. On the other hand, whiteout those code-transformation tools – which are called macros if they are built into the language – all those fancy and simple web-tools would not be feasible.
Ignoring macros means to me oversimplifying programming. Which results into not solving the real (meta) problem. For a while you will get away without macros/code generation, but in the long run they are inevitable.
One big problem with macros is that they make it very difficult to build good tools. You can't really understand the meaning of any particular piece of syntax without completely evaluating any macros that might be in use.
That sounds exactly like what a compiler has to do. And what all type-aware Go tools currently have to do. So we're already doing that, we just have no language-level support for doing so, so we have incredibly less-capable workarounds like makefiles and go:generate.
> Macros are a cop out of language design. They mean "everybody do what you want and create your own language, we don't care anymore".
I prefer safe AST based macro than runtime reflection like Go has. The latter is actually a cop-out, unlike the former in the context of type safety at compile time.
I prefer safe AST based macro than runtime reflection like Go has. The latter is actually a cop-out, unlike the former in the context of type safety at compile time.
Well, they sort of give the same message already, but with custom code-level solutions instead of macros...
"Everybody go an invent your own way to handle error checking/propagation" etc...
"Everybody go an invent your own way to handle error checking/propagation" etc...
Instead one gets to use go generate for the same purpose.
My preferred solution for the err handling stutter would be something like "whenever".
func Foo(x int) (int, error) { var err error a, err := whatever() if err != nil { return 0, err } b, err := whatever() if err != nil { return 0, err } ... }
becomes
func Foo(x int) (int, error) { var err error whenever err != nil { return 0, err } a, err := whatever() b, err := whatever() ... }
Essentially, "whenever" just means "insert this line at every point in the remainder of this code block where err is assigned a new value.
It is explicit, simple, easy to understand, and would be identical in function to how most errors are currently handled.
func Foo(x int) (int, error) { var err error a, err := whatever() if err != nil { return 0, err } b, err := whatever() if err != nil { return 0, err } ... }
becomes
func Foo(x int) (int, error) { var err error whenever err != nil { return 0, err } a, err := whatever() b, err := whatever() ... }
Essentially, "whenever" just means "insert this line at every point in the remainder of this code block where err is assigned a new value.
It is explicit, simple, easy to understand, and would be identical in function to how most errors are currently handled.
Indent your code with 4 spaces to prevent HN from eating the newlines:
func Foo(x int) (int, error) {
var err error
a, err := whatever()
if err != nil {
return 0, err
}
b, err := whatever()
if err != nil {
return 0, err
}
...
}
func Foo(x int) (int, error) {
var err error
whenever err != nil {
return 0, err
}
a, err := whatever()
b, err := whatever()
...
}That's not error handling, that's error noticing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ph4eYD7Bgek&t=2m35s
At this point, Go would just see macros as automatically called code generation, which leads to an unpredictable speed reduction in compile times especially with large dependency trees. Slowing down compile times at any noticeable level is probably a non-starter based on language goals.
I still don't get it; so you invented a language based on idea of not doing the "evil" things C++ or say other languages did and now you have to re-invent all those "evil" things because community wants it?
It isn't necessarily a bad idea to start with a minimal design and add features later once the implementation is more mature. Even if Go never gets generics, it's still a good solution for a number of problem domains (for example, it seems to have found something of a niche for infrastructure; Kubernetes, Prometheus, juju, etc.)
Kubernetes has enormous masses of repetitive code that is essentially a workaround for the absence of generics or other kinds of improved types. The reliance on "union types" -- really, exclusive arcs -- gives me the heebies and also guarantees that there is a bottleneck for new features: PRs to core. And then there's the whole TypeMeta thing. An entire dynamic type system because Golang can't express what Kubernetes needs.
And no, I don't see code generation as a good thing. It's fragile and difficult to safely upgrade.
And no, I don't see code generation as a good thing. It's fragile and difficult to safely upgrade.
Kubernetes has more or less invented their own type system. I agree that much of it is horrible to deal with, but I don't know how you could easily express it in any language.
Of course someone could always prove me wrong by doing just that.
Of course someone could always prove me wrong by doing just that.
That's kind of my point; the code might not be as beautiful as we could ever imagine, but as a product it works extremely well, and would be worse if it carried around a lot of runtime baggage and poor performance which many of the alternatives would have given.
This is not about beauty. It is about reliability, simplicity and safety, all of which contribute to development velocity.
Golang is simple only for toy examples.
At scale Golang codebases are difficult to navigate, understand and test due to the repetitive repetition of repetitious repeats.
And the idea that at-the-time-viable alternative languages like Java, C++ or D are too slow for something as relatively lightly trafficked as the core Kubernetes controller codebase is just plain silly.
Golang is simple only for toy examples.
At scale Golang codebases are difficult to navigate, understand and test due to the repetitive repetition of repetitious repeats.
And the idea that at-the-time-viable alternative languages like Java, C++ or D are too slow for something as relatively lightly trafficked as the core Kubernetes controller codebase is just plain silly.
When I mentioned speed, I obviously wasn't ruling out C++ on that basis - but I would rule out Python or Node. Java is fast enough when going but the awkwardness of needing a JVM plus abysmal runtime memory usage make it pretty unattractive to me, especially for the k8s agents where the resource needs have to be subtracted from total node size.
I've not found Go difficult to navigate because of repetition. Quite the reverse really - it's easy to reason about where everything comes from and (usually) easy to work out how everything connects together. I would take that any day over a large Java codebase with the usual obfuscations of dependency injection, or a Python or C++ codebase where somebody has tried to be "clever".
I've not found Go difficult to navigate because of repetition. Quite the reverse really - it's easy to reason about where everything comes from and (usually) easy to work out how everything connects together. I would take that any day over a large Java codebase with the usual obfuscations of dependency injection, or a Python or C++ codebase where somebody has tried to be "clever".
You are focused on good Golang vs bad Java.
People have also written bad Golang and good Java.
The difference for me is: given the choice between good Java and good Golang, I'd take Java. I don't have acres of stuff in my damn way.
People have also written bad Golang and good Java.
The difference for me is: given the choice between good Java and good Golang, I'd take Java. I don't have acres of stuff in my damn way.
No, they re-invent all those "evil" things it's wrong that they're evil, and modern software development needs them.
The problems C++ has have nothing to do with those things anyway.
Haskell has both generics and great error management, and it's not C++. Ditto for OcamL and any number of languages...
The problems C++ has have nothing to do with those things anyway.
Haskell has both generics and great error management, and it's not C++. Ditto for OcamL and any number of languages...
so coming back full cycle to realize they should've hired actual programmers that writes C++ so they don't have to invent a new language to babysit them
It will be very interesting to see, what will using Go 2 generic code from Go 1 code look like.
[deleted]
Very interesting ideas in there. Especially the thought of an upcoming Go 2 perhaps being done in such a compatible way that "Go 2" is actually "Go 1.1X"
He also hints that it would likely only be done to address major issues/concerns/changes such as:
* generics
* modules (perhaps done? time will tell)
* errors (if err != nil {}, extra type information, chaining, etc)
* context
Still to early to tell if anything I listed or he listed would be part of "Go 2" or whatever it happens to be called.
He also hints that it would likely only be done to address major issues/concerns/changes such as:
* generics
* modules (perhaps done? time will tell)
* errors (if err != nil {}, extra type information, chaining, etc)
* context
Still to early to tell if anything I listed or he listed would be part of "Go 2" or whatever it happens to be called.
> Very interesting ideas in there. Especially the thought of an upcoming Go 2 perhaps being done in such a compatible way that "Go 2" is actually "Go 1.1X"
Go project lead Russ Cox already talked about that on an episode of the Go Time podcast. Transcript: https://changelog.com/gotime/77#transcript-60
Go project lead Russ Cox already talked about that on an episode of the Go Time podcast. Transcript: https://changelog.com/gotime/77#transcript-60
Don't people just write helper functions to deal with the error checking spam? It's five lines at the top of the file...
Anyway, I will miss our GOPATH overlords. I have enough decisions to make, I'm fine with the language making some for me.
Anyway, I will miss our GOPATH overlords. I have enough decisions to make, I'm fine with the language making some for me.
sitepodmatt(2)
The more they stall adding stuff like generics the more painful (and more work for the tools and ecosystem to catch up) will be when they eventually cave in and do it...
And there will always be all the workarounds, third party solutions, and wasted efforts that would could have been avoided if something that could have been delivered early on (like e.g. package management) didn't come a decade late for no good reason.
At least now they've come up with a module/dependency system, which, even though a decade late, doesn't bring anything extraordinary to the table compared to what other platforms already had for ages.
Generics and error management remain before it makes sense to make it stable and boring for eternity...