Backwards compatibility in Go (2015)(blog.merovius.de)
blog.merovius.de
Backwards compatibility in Go (2015)
http://blog.merovius.de/2015/07/29/backwards-compatibility-in-go.html
35 comments
Most of these are treated as backwards incompatibilities by the stdlib folks and most users.
The one that's not is that adding a field or method could break importing code. The scenario here is that you embed two types, one from the upgrading lib and one not, and the upgrading lib adds a name that collides with one in the other type. Rather than pick a winner in that conflict (last embed in the type definition wins, say), Go raises an error so the human can explicitly resolve it by, e.g. renaming one of the conflicting names if you control the code (gorename helps!) or changing one of the embeds to a regular member.
This can happen, but I haven't seen it occur in the time I've been around the Go community, and never adding methods doesn't make sense, and silently resolving those conflicts could _still_ cause a backcompat issue and seems worse than the status quo, and if you do hit the conflict it's often resolvable (gorename!), so I think calling it backwards compatible to add a method/field is reasonable (as well as what everyone already does).
The practical backwards compatibility things that I have seen come up tend to have less to do with folks hitting cases like that than changes that are theoretically right but expose code that was buggy but happened to work before, e.g. programs that used to rely on racy map accesses or wrong cgo pointer usage or invalid Less functions in sort working, or trickiness around net protocol interfaces and buggy clients, or parallel tests exposing something.
The one that's not is that adding a field or method could break importing code. The scenario here is that you embed two types, one from the upgrading lib and one not, and the upgrading lib adds a name that collides with one in the other type. Rather than pick a winner in that conflict (last embed in the type definition wins, say), Go raises an error so the human can explicitly resolve it by, e.g. renaming one of the conflicting names if you control the code (gorename helps!) or changing one of the embeds to a regular member.
This can happen, but I haven't seen it occur in the time I've been around the Go community, and never adding methods doesn't make sense, and silently resolving those conflicts could _still_ cause a backcompat issue and seems worse than the status quo, and if you do hit the conflict it's often resolvable (gorename!), so I think calling it backwards compatible to add a method/field is reasonable (as well as what everyone already does).
The practical backwards compatibility things that I have seen come up tend to have less to do with folks hitting cases like that than changes that are theoretically right but expose code that was buggy but happened to work before, e.g. programs that used to rely on racy map accesses or wrong cgo pointer usage or invalid Less functions in sort working, or trickiness around net protocol interfaces and buggy clients, or parallel tests exposing something.
> The practical backwards compatibility things that I have seen come up
Yes, I'm not really talking about practical problems :) This article is mainly a response to various people claiming, "backwards compatibility is easy, it's a breakage if you are breaking the build".
FWIW, most of the scenarios you mention I wouldn't really call a backwards compatibility issue either, though. I'd say they are bugs that are exposed by a change in API.
Yes, I'm not really talking about practical problems :) This article is mainly a response to various people claiming, "backwards compatibility is easy, it's a breakage if you are breaking the build".
FWIW, most of the scenarios you mention I wouldn't really call a backwards compatibility issue either, though. I'd say they are bugs that are exposed by a change in API.
Yeah. I'm trying to say, sure, that's a clever note on what can, in very precise circumstances, happen whenever any field/method is added. But as working engineers, focusing on the practical problems is, well, the practical thing to do.
If what you're thinking is "well in that case, people should agree that adding methods/fields is OK," I think they do, and, e.g. https://golang.org/doc/go1compat spells out that methods may be added and how that can interact with multiple embedding.
Practically, I don't want my upstreams to stop adding methods or fields to structs or to create an extra step they have to go through before adding one. That slows down upstream dev; it's not a net win for me as a downstream or a cost I want to impose on (sometimes-unpaid) OSS maintainers.
I also don't want a tool to flag every upstream field/method addition as a breaking change, because that's noise to me in the common case where the change doesn't break _my_ program. Really, if I want a back-compat test, I should upgrade and try to run my code's tests since that can shake out many more kinds of break, including ones due to my bugs/my dependencies on undoc'd stuff. I should do it whether the API was tweaked or not, because any change can change behavior.
Again, you did make a clever observation of a potential build break; I'm just saying I don't think that Go library authors need to spend more time worrying about potential name collisions with multiple embedding, or that people should specifically build workflows and tools around it.
If what you're thinking is "well in that case, people should agree that adding methods/fields is OK," I think they do, and, e.g. https://golang.org/doc/go1compat spells out that methods may be added and how that can interact with multiple embedding.
Practically, I don't want my upstreams to stop adding methods or fields to structs or to create an extra step they have to go through before adding one. That slows down upstream dev; it's not a net win for me as a downstream or a cost I want to impose on (sometimes-unpaid) OSS maintainers.
I also don't want a tool to flag every upstream field/method addition as a breaking change, because that's noise to me in the common case where the change doesn't break _my_ program. Really, if I want a back-compat test, I should upgrade and try to run my code's tests since that can shake out many more kinds of break, including ones due to my bugs/my dependencies on undoc'd stuff. I should do it whether the API was tweaked or not, because any change can change behavior.
Again, you did make a clever observation of a potential build break; I'm just saying I don't think that Go library authors need to spend more time worrying about potential name collisions with multiple embedding, or that people should specifically build workflows and tools around it.
> But as working engineers, focusing on the practical problems is, well, the practical thing to do.
Well, yeah, I'm an engineer too (just educated as a mathematician) :)
FWIW, I tried to solve an engineering problem, namely "how can we get the advantages of SemVer, while working around human deficiencies in setting and maintaining them". Or "why should a human need to figure out a version number, if a computer can do it for me". But, the thing is, that this turned out not to actually be an engineering problem, but a political problem; if there is no obviously correct interpretation of "breaking change", then for a tool to be acceptable, you'd need to get people to accept it's limited implementation of "breaking". I simply wasn't willing to put up with this political challenge (others where) :)
> If what you're thinking is "well in that case, people should agree that adding methods/fields is OK," I think they do, and, e.g. https://golang.org/doc/go1compat spells out that methods may be added and how that can interact with multiple embedding.
True. AFAIR that section was added around the time I wrote that article (I believe it was in tip a couple of days beforehand).
> Practically, I don't want my upstreams to stop adding methods or fields to structs or to create an extra step they have to go through before adding one. That slows down upstream dev; it's not a net win for me as a downstream or a cost I want to impose on (sometimes-unpaid) OSS maintainers.
I agree.
> I also don't want a tool to flag every upstream field/method addition as a breaking change, because that's noise to me in the common case where the change doesn't break _my_ program. Really, if I want a back-compat test, I should upgrade and try to run my code's tests since that can shake out many more kinds of break, including ones due to my bugs/my dependencies on undoc'd stuff
But you, as the author of a package, are not really the target audience either. You are able to fix compilation bugs, but your users likely are not.
But yeah, you probably also just aren't the addressee of my article. It is mostly addressed to people claiming that versioning in go is a solved problem and SemVer is the solution. It's not.
Your observation is pretty much the point of the article; a breakage happens, iff my code doesn't work anymore with an upgraded dependency, not more, nor less.
> Again, you did make a clever observation of a potential build break; I'm just saying I don't think that Go library authors need to spend more time worrying about potential name collisions with multiple embedding, or that people should specifically build workflows and tools around it.
Here, I disagree. Tooling to work around breakages would be excellent. As you mentioned yourself, for most breakages you just have to make the compiler happy and for most breakages it's pretty trivial to figure out what's needed. And at that point, there really should be a tool to do the job; after all, you should never send a human to do a computer's job. :)
Well, yeah, I'm an engineer too (just educated as a mathematician) :)
FWIW, I tried to solve an engineering problem, namely "how can we get the advantages of SemVer, while working around human deficiencies in setting and maintaining them". Or "why should a human need to figure out a version number, if a computer can do it for me". But, the thing is, that this turned out not to actually be an engineering problem, but a political problem; if there is no obviously correct interpretation of "breaking change", then for a tool to be acceptable, you'd need to get people to accept it's limited implementation of "breaking". I simply wasn't willing to put up with this political challenge (others where) :)
> If what you're thinking is "well in that case, people should agree that adding methods/fields is OK," I think they do, and, e.g. https://golang.org/doc/go1compat spells out that methods may be added and how that can interact with multiple embedding.
True. AFAIR that section was added around the time I wrote that article (I believe it was in tip a couple of days beforehand).
> Practically, I don't want my upstreams to stop adding methods or fields to structs or to create an extra step they have to go through before adding one. That slows down upstream dev; it's not a net win for me as a downstream or a cost I want to impose on (sometimes-unpaid) OSS maintainers.
I agree.
> I also don't want a tool to flag every upstream field/method addition as a breaking change, because that's noise to me in the common case where the change doesn't break _my_ program. Really, if I want a back-compat test, I should upgrade and try to run my code's tests since that can shake out many more kinds of break, including ones due to my bugs/my dependencies on undoc'd stuff
But you, as the author of a package, are not really the target audience either. You are able to fix compilation bugs, but your users likely are not.
But yeah, you probably also just aren't the addressee of my article. It is mostly addressed to people claiming that versioning in go is a solved problem and SemVer is the solution. It's not.
Your observation is pretty much the point of the article; a breakage happens, iff my code doesn't work anymore with an upgraded dependency, not more, nor less.
> Again, you did make a clever observation of a potential build break; I'm just saying I don't think that Go library authors need to spend more time worrying about potential name collisions with multiple embedding, or that people should specifically build workflows and tools around it.
Here, I disagree. Tooling to work around breakages would be excellent. As you mentioned yourself, for most breakages you just have to make the compiler happy and for most breakages it's pretty trivial to figure out what's needed. And at that point, there really should be a tool to do the job; after all, you should never send a human to do a computer's job. :)
> I'm an engineer too
Yep! Point is, we all are, so we all have to worry about how things break in practice, not only about the theoretical model of compatibility.
And it turns out we break each others' code lots of ways, sometimes even just changing behavior without touching the API. If I had a tool that detected certain build-time problems and worked around others, I could still end up upgrading to a new version of a library that breaks my product. So we end up with vendoring and such where product maintainers sort it out, and probably will continue to need some humans in the loop as long as releases have bugs.
I do think there's plenty to do on the larger issue of compatibility even if not specifically focused on this particular build-time break. There are tools I'd love to see, e.g. to test my program with its deps updated and maybe even do something git-bisect-ish to find just where things went wrong. (Node has something along those lines named Greenkeeper.) Peter Bourgon's got a group working on Go package management, and there's been work done, both practical (e.g. the tools and practices at https://peter.bourgon.org/go-best-practices-2016/#dependency...) and theoretical (https://research.swtch.com/version-sat). Useful progress and interesting stuff.
Yep! Point is, we all are, so we all have to worry about how things break in practice, not only about the theoretical model of compatibility.
And it turns out we break each others' code lots of ways, sometimes even just changing behavior without touching the API. If I had a tool that detected certain build-time problems and worked around others, I could still end up upgrading to a new version of a library that breaks my product. So we end up with vendoring and such where product maintainers sort it out, and probably will continue to need some humans in the loop as long as releases have bugs.
I do think there's plenty to do on the larger issue of compatibility even if not specifically focused on this particular build-time break. There are tools I'd love to see, e.g. to test my program with its deps updated and maybe even do something git-bisect-ish to find just where things went wrong. (Node has something along those lines named Greenkeeper.) Peter Bourgon's got a group working on Go package management, and there's been work done, both practical (e.g. the tools and practices at https://peter.bourgon.org/go-best-practices-2016/#dependency...) and theoretical (https://research.swtch.com/version-sat). Useful progress and interesting stuff.
> Perhaps the "correct", but cumbersome thing to do is supply different versions of the API when maintaining backward compatibility and never change the old version.
This is the approach taken in good software deployments, specially if you cannot control who the users are.
This is the approach taken in good software deployments, specially if you cannot control who the users are.
Then what's the purpose of the promise in the first place? That's just having the old APIs and compilers with the new optimisations (at least what I understood from your suggestion).
The main point of the article to me is "adding fields to Go structs is a breaking change" since your users could be using implicit struct initializer syntax, which will cause a compilation error. They have listed other points too, but I think this one can be highlighted.
Using the unkeyed initializer syntax is discouraged anyhow: https://golang.org/cmd/vet/#hdr-Unkeyed_composite_literals
Unkeyed syntax also doesn't work for a struct in another package with at least one private field.
One common exception is a vector type that isn't expected to change--RGBA, XYZ, LatLon, etc.
Unkeyed syntax also doesn't work for a struct in another package with at least one private field.
One common exception is a vector type that isn't expected to change--RGBA, XYZ, LatLon, etc.
The issue is that even if you only consider keyed initializers, adding fields is a breaking change, strictly speaking. I tried making clear that I use the compatibility guarantee as a basis in the introduction and I mention this exception more thoroughly in the section about adding fields.
There's no need to reinvent the wheel. Semantic versioning already defines a standard for managing version changes in a pragmatic way.
http://semver.org/
http://semver.org/
I think you either did not read the article or missed the point. Author says if you make _seemingly innocent non-breaking changes_ you might think it does not require a major version change in SemVer but in fact (for instance in case of adding struct fields) it does.
Yes but only in Go. There are projects that have successfully evolved APIs in not only source compatible but binary compatible ways over a period of decades. Win32 and Java are the obvious candidates.
Not changing or deleting existing functions and fields is easy. The problem is that Go apparently doesn't let you reliably add things either. That is kind of a joke, how is anyone expected to be able to evolve an API if you can't even add things?
Seems like the consensus is "well it doesn't happen often so it's not an issue" which is weak. Go isn't even trying for binary compatibility, the article is only talking about source compat!
Not changing or deleting existing functions and fields is easy. The problem is that Go apparently doesn't let you reliably add things either. That is kind of a joke, how is anyone expected to be able to evolve an API if you can't even add things?
Seems like the consensus is "well it doesn't happen often so it's not an issue" which is weak. Go isn't even trying for binary compatibility, the article is only talking about source compat!
> Yes but only in Go.
I don't believe this to be true. I'd say at least most languages/projects would have exactly the same kind of problems (some of them at runtime, some of them at compile time), it's just that in practice they don't really matter. So you don't know about it and it seems, to a casual observer, to work just fine.
> The problem is that Go apparently doesn't let you reliably add things either.
Neither does, at least, C. I'd guess that python also doesn't let you do it. I don't know enough about java, but I'd assume that it has the same problems.
What you need to understand is, that I applied an extremely nit-picky interpretation of stability. It's not like any of the things I mentioned are learned from experience or practical problems; I just understand the go type system enough and thought really hard whether there is an obviously correct and useful interpretation of API stability under its constraints and came up with a (mostly theoretical) result. Most projects in go that use SemVer apply a more generous and naive notion that works well enough in practice. C projects do exactly the same.
I don't believe this to be true. I'd say at least most languages/projects would have exactly the same kind of problems (some of them at runtime, some of them at compile time), it's just that in practice they don't really matter. So you don't know about it and it seems, to a casual observer, to work just fine.
> The problem is that Go apparently doesn't let you reliably add things either.
Neither does, at least, C. I'd guess that python also doesn't let you do it. I don't know enough about java, but I'd assume that it has the same problems.
What you need to understand is, that I applied an extremely nit-picky interpretation of stability. It's not like any of the things I mentioned are learned from experience or practical problems; I just understand the go type system enough and thought really hard whether there is an obviously correct and useful interpretation of API stability under its constraints and came up with a (mostly theoretical) result. Most projects in go that use SemVer apply a more generous and naive notion that works well enough in practice. C projects do exactly the same.
doesn't that mean you thought wrong, and it is in fact a breaking, major-version change? that seems fine - it's a signal to your consumers that it may not work out-of-the-box.
What I was trying to illustrate is, that the notion of versioning is broken in and off itself. By the lessons of the article, pretty much every API change is a breaking change, so you would constantly need to increment the major version, if you take SemVer seriously, meaning minor versions don't exist, de facto. And if you now imagine that you'd need to touch your code every time one of your dependencies increments their minor version (I mean. Likely you can't, because you have no notion of how often that happens, because currently all your tools just ignore those changes), lest people can't build your software because the packaging tool needs to assume an incompatibility that needs manual resolving, you will see how useless this makes versioning.
Now, there are two ways out of this mess: One is to ignore it and just assume that, in practice, some things will are more likely to break consumers than others and just apply a reasonable case-by-case judgement. It's what's happening right now in probably ~every language for ~every tool out there. I think it's reasonable, but I personally dislike it, because for one, humans eff up all the time, so relying on them having a good notion of what breaks and applying it consistently and timely leads to pain. This whole article is born out of the idea, that these things should be codified and then automatically applied, I shouldn't even have to need to know what version my package currently is, IMHO.
The other way out is much more complicated: Transition to a notion of breakage not by versioning APIs, but by defining it in terms of pairs of packages. This also has a bunch of definite and obvious deficiencies (for example that you don't have access to all the code that imports you. Or the combinatoric explosion).
Currently, my personal hope is that this can be solved by supporting gradual code repair (see, e.g. https://github.com/golang/go/issues/18130 for what this means and how this is currently progressing) and then add good tooling (I'm working on something, but I have limited time and brain space). We'll see :)
Now, there are two ways out of this mess: One is to ignore it and just assume that, in practice, some things will are more likely to break consumers than others and just apply a reasonable case-by-case judgement. It's what's happening right now in probably ~every language for ~every tool out there. I think it's reasonable, but I personally dislike it, because for one, humans eff up all the time, so relying on them having a good notion of what breaks and applying it consistently and timely leads to pain. This whole article is born out of the idea, that these things should be codified and then automatically applied, I shouldn't even have to need to know what version my package currently is, IMHO.
The other way out is much more complicated: Transition to a notion of breakage not by versioning APIs, but by defining it in terms of pairs of packages. This also has a bunch of definite and obvious deficiencies (for example that you don't have access to all the code that imports you. Or the combinatoric explosion).
Currently, my personal hope is that this can be solved by supporting gradual code repair (see, e.g. https://github.com/golang/go/issues/18130 for what this means and how this is currently progressing) and then add good tooling (I'm working on something, but I have limited time and brain space). We'll see :)
A good chunk of that is that Go, by design, makes nearly all changes breaking (as you covered pretty well). I doubt they did so intentionally, but they seem to focus their decisions on small-ish scale projects at the expense of large / longer-term ones, and this is the natural consequence.
I think the focus here makes sense, and improves lots of useful things in practice (which is why they do it - Go focuses on pragmatism), I just don't really like it. Every non-side-project I've worked on has chafed under weaknesses that Go seems to embrace, because the code has had to survive and grow for a couple years. It's a sizable step up from Python tho.
As far as ways out of this mess... not sure. A lot of the problems are solved by "hit it until it compiles", which is a good thing, and often implies automated code-rewriting tools are possible. The rest (adding methods -> you may collide with an interface which you didn't before) can probably be detected so you at least have your potential-problems enumerated. There are some fairly sophisticated tools out there for doing both of these, e.g. https://github.com/facebook/codemod , and it'd be great to see more language-communities embrace (and improve) them IMO.
If you manage to limit most of your changes to "can be automatically changed / detected", you have a fair bit more freedom. With Go's limitations... maybe enough? I'd have to read and think a lot harder to figure out if there would be too many things that fall into those gaps.
I think the focus here makes sense, and improves lots of useful things in practice (which is why they do it - Go focuses on pragmatism), I just don't really like it. Every non-side-project I've worked on has chafed under weaknesses that Go seems to embrace, because the code has had to survive and grow for a couple years. It's a sizable step up from Python tho.
As far as ways out of this mess... not sure. A lot of the problems are solved by "hit it until it compiles", which is a good thing, and often implies automated code-rewriting tools are possible. The rest (adding methods -> you may collide with an interface which you didn't before) can probably be detected so you at least have your potential-problems enumerated. There are some fairly sophisticated tools out there for doing both of these, e.g. https://github.com/facebook/codemod , and it'd be great to see more language-communities embrace (and improve) them IMO.
If you manage to limit most of your changes to "can be automatically changed / detected", you have a fair bit more freedom. With Go's limitations... maybe enough? I'd have to read and think a lot harder to figure out if there would be too many things that fall into those gaps.
> they seem to focus their decisions on small-ish scale projects at the expense of large / longer-term ones, and this is the natural consequence.
This is - excuse me - a pretty ridiculous claim, given the explicit design goals of go. https://talks.golang.org/2012/splash.article You might disagree, that their choices are furthering these design goals (I don't), but claiming that they focus on small-ish projects is just non-factual, most design decisions are driven by a focus on large (both in problem- and code size) projects.
> A lot of the problems are solved by "hit it until it compiles"
Neither do I want to need to fix compilation errors in software that I use, nor do I want my users to have to do it. This is not a solution to the problems at hand.
> The rest (adding methods -> you may collide with an interface which you didn't before) can probably be detected
No, they can't. From looking at your code you only get an outwards pointing import-arrow. There is no way for you to know which code actually relies on your API and in what way. You might, say, limit your guarantees to packages on godoc.org (which is indeed what I do in practice), but it's still hardly a solution to the problem.
> If you manage to limit most of your changes to "can be automatically changed / detected", you have a fair bit more freedom.
This is indeed the path I'm currently following; for every breaking change, provide an automatic fix. It still isn't an actual solution, though, just a halfway decent workaround. It especially doesn't work without https://github.com/golang/go/issues/18130 and a couple of other needed changes.
Luckily, go has immensely powerful tools to perform these kinds of rewrites (much more powerful than any other language I'm aware of) and I'm thus pretty optimistic that this will provide a good way forward soon (now that the need for gradual repair is officially recognized).
This is - excuse me - a pretty ridiculous claim, given the explicit design goals of go. https://talks.golang.org/2012/splash.article You might disagree, that their choices are furthering these design goals (I don't), but claiming that they focus on small-ish projects is just non-factual, most design decisions are driven by a focus on large (both in problem- and code size) projects.
> A lot of the problems are solved by "hit it until it compiles"
Neither do I want to need to fix compilation errors in software that I use, nor do I want my users to have to do it. This is not a solution to the problems at hand.
> The rest (adding methods -> you may collide with an interface which you didn't before) can probably be detected
No, they can't. From looking at your code you only get an outwards pointing import-arrow. There is no way for you to know which code actually relies on your API and in what way. You might, say, limit your guarantees to packages on godoc.org (which is indeed what I do in practice), but it's still hardly a solution to the problem.
> If you manage to limit most of your changes to "can be automatically changed / detected", you have a fair bit more freedom.
This is indeed the path I'm currently following; for every breaking change, provide an automatic fix. It still isn't an actual solution, though, just a halfway decent workaround. It especially doesn't work without https://github.com/golang/go/issues/18130 and a couple of other needed changes.
Luckily, go has immensely powerful tools to perform these kinds of rewrites (much more powerful than any other language I'm aware of) and I'm thus pretty optimistic that this will provide a good way forward soon (now that the need for gradual repair is officially recognized).
Yeah... no, they're not focusing on large. Look at the vendoring hell, the weak typing / nonsense around no-generics vs oh-but-maps-are leading to error-prone switch statements, and lack of control-of-the-language. Larger than Python projects tend to support without pain, absolutely (and that's an important area), but not large. Service-units in a large system, sure, which is likely what many will use it for, but it's just not friendly to millions of lines of code and tens or hundreds of developers. Their solution to things getting out of hand or having performance problems is to divide the system, not to have a system that can handle it.
edit: oh boy, right at the top, a winner: Go's design considerations include rigorous dependency management, ...
Heck no it doesn't. It has been hacked on by the community, which has thankfully adopted things like Glide and GPS that do things properly, because it abandoned this whole area. As it did with e.g. debugging, for which their official stance is "use GDB, which doesn't really work".
edit: oh boy, right at the top, a winner: Go's design considerations include rigorous dependency management, ...
Heck no it doesn't. It has been hacked on by the community, which has thankfully adopted things like Glide and GPS that do things properly, because it abandoned this whole area. As it did with e.g. debugging, for which their official stance is "use GDB, which doesn't really work".
> the weak typing
What do you mean?
> nonsense around no-generics
What nonsense?
> error-prone switch statements
What makes them error-prone?
> lack of control-of-the-language
What do you mean?
> not large. Service-units in a large system, sure, which is likely what many will use it for, but it's just not friendly to millions of lines of code and tens or hundreds of developers.
There are go-projects like this on github. Not to mention the fact that several large companies run central parts of their infrastructure on go (I recently started working on a go-project that qualifies). I think your belief that the flaws of go disqualify it for large projects is biased on a certain, subjective perception to do things, not the objective absolute truth you are trying to make it out to be.
But even if it was correct, at best you are arguing that their efforts to focus on large software was in vain, but claiming that they don't focus on large software at all is, again, simply completely false. Please try to be constructive, here.
> Their solution to things getting out of hand or having performance problems is to divide the system, not to have a system that can handle it.
Can you give an example?
> As it did with e.g. debugging, for which their official stance is "use GDB, which doesn't really work".
I don't believe that's the official stance anymore. And IMHO, most large applications don't particularly profit from an interactive debugger anyhow (I can't just attach a debugger to a server serving thousands of requests per second and have any hope of getting useful answers). The debugging story of go is much more bound to things like "import _ net/http/pprof" and the like and systems like stackdriver.
Anyway. All of this is pretty off-topic, anyway.
What do you mean?
> nonsense around no-generics
What nonsense?
> error-prone switch statements
What makes them error-prone?
> lack of control-of-the-language
What do you mean?
> not large. Service-units in a large system, sure, which is likely what many will use it for, but it's just not friendly to millions of lines of code and tens or hundreds of developers.
There are go-projects like this on github. Not to mention the fact that several large companies run central parts of their infrastructure on go (I recently started working on a go-project that qualifies). I think your belief that the flaws of go disqualify it for large projects is biased on a certain, subjective perception to do things, not the objective absolute truth you are trying to make it out to be.
But even if it was correct, at best you are arguing that their efforts to focus on large software was in vain, but claiming that they don't focus on large software at all is, again, simply completely false. Please try to be constructive, here.
> Their solution to things getting out of hand or having performance problems is to divide the system, not to have a system that can handle it.
Can you give an example?
> As it did with e.g. debugging, for which their official stance is "use GDB, which doesn't really work".
I don't believe that's the official stance anymore. And IMHO, most large applications don't particularly profit from an interactive debugger anyhow (I can't just attach a debugger to a server serving thousands of requests per second and have any hope of getting useful answers). The debugging story of go is much more bound to things like "import _ net/http/pprof" and the like and systems like stackdriver.
Anyway. All of this is pretty off-topic, anyway.
If you follow semver, this article tells you when you need to bump the major version versus the minor. The gist is the article is that you almost always need to bump the major version.
This reminded me of "Spec-ulation" from Rich Hickey [0]
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyLBGkS5ICk
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyLBGkS5ICk
Well yeah, much of this is true for many languages / libraries. And some of the more annoying ones that other languages don't tend to suffer from (adding a method) are largely due to Go's duck-typed interfaces, or the lack of constructors (there's no way to have optional values, except via factory methods. you could use nothing but factory methods, but it simplifies initializers so much you are disincentivized to do so).
[deleted]
I think what the author was trying to figure out was not just when you should do a major/minor version update, but how that could be done automatically. An example is how in Elm it can detect a major vs minor change and bump your numbers automatically when you publish. Something like that for Go could be built into some tool to help package maintainers (public + private) keep SemVar up to date automatically since there are already types and there are ways to possibly detect changes since a previous version.
I imagine you could write a tool that would check the previous highest "v*" tag in git's version of the project vs now using something like go-guru and determine if any public interfaces were changed and that could automatically determine if it's a major or minor bump.
I imagine you could write a tool that would check the previous highest "v*" tag in git's version of the project vs now using something like go-guru and determine if any public interfaces were changed and that could automatically determine if it's a major or minor bump.
You are interpreting me correctly :) Indeed, the article was written when I started writing that tool and quickly figured out that it was impossible to do satisfactory.
I'm a mathematician, so the only satisfactory solution to me would be one that is "clearly correct". As soon as you need to first get agreement about the definition you are using, you are probably not designing a clean and beautiful thing :)
I'm a mathematician, so the only satisfactory solution to me would be one that is "clearly correct". As soon as you need to first get agreement about the definition you are using, you are probably not designing a clean and beautiful thing :)
Yea I've had this discussion with a friend of mine who likes Haskell and got me in to Elm. He claimed you could only get that kind of tool in something like those languages which have stricter and stronger type systems. I'm not familiar with the details, but it looks like you ran in to that problem too.
Maybe such a tool would still have some utility; I would appreciate a tool that could generate a change log between versions automatically...
After I posted this I thought of writing a tool that checks if you are making breaking API changes in your go package. Turns out there is already one: https://github.com/bradleyfalzon/apicompat/
The article was created because I was starting to write a tool to do this. After sitting down and thinking about it quickly, I came to the conclusion in the article: There is no non-breaking change (or rather: That determination can not be made from the package you are looking at). At that point I put the idea to rest :)
> Changing a function/method signature
Another reason for methods is a user could have created an interface based on your method, and assigned your implementing object to a variable of that type. Changing the method signature makes that assignment invalid.
Another reason for methods is a user could have created an interface based on your method, and assigned your implementing object to a variable of that type. Changing the method signature makes that assignment invalid.
Author of the article here. Weird to be on HN ^^ If you have questions, shoot away.
> tl;dr: There are next to no "backwards compatible API changes" in go. You should explicitely name your compatibility-guarantees.
It's not a problem in languages that come with a package manager, or at least promote a specific one to handle dependencies.
It's only a problem in languages where developers thinks "you don't need that". There is this weird belief in the Go community that Go is a miraculous language where good programming practices don't apply because Go magically make them irrelevant. It also stems from the Go team itself, which used to claim that "at Google, we don't need this or that" and then the Go community spreading the "gospel" : "Go doesn't suit you because it wasn't created for you"(?!?).
Hopefully Russ Cox sees that light, he even wrote a paper about "Go zealots" ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13356531 ) and how they refuse any change in the language, even when "teams at Google needs it". The irony
It's not a problem in languages that come with a package manager, or at least promote a specific one to handle dependencies.
It's only a problem in languages where developers thinks "you don't need that". There is this weird belief in the Go community that Go is a miraculous language where good programming practices don't apply because Go magically make them irrelevant. It also stems from the Go team itself, which used to claim that "at Google, we don't need this or that" and then the Go community spreading the "gospel" : "Go doesn't suit you because it wasn't created for you"(?!?).
Hopefully Russ Cox sees that light, he even wrote a paper about "Go zealots" ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13356531 ) and how they refuse any change in the language, even when "teams at Google needs it". The irony
> It's not a problem in languages that come with a package manager, or at least promote a specific one to handle dependencies.
No. It is pretty much only a problem in languages with a package manager. Languages without the notion of package versioning don't run into the issue of needing to have a notion of what a version is, clearly. A package manager just helps automatically enforce versioning, it does zero to help you figure out what the correct version is.
Yes, not coming with versioning and a package manager comes with its own disadvantages and pain, no doubt. And we can surely debate which pain outweighs or is worse. But claiming that package managers would solve this problem just isn't true (I wrote the article when the whole "SemVer and package manager for go" debate was taking off and I tried to come up with a better approach).
> It's only a problem in languages where developers thinks "you don't need that". There is this weird belief in the Go community that Go is a miraculous language where good programming practices don't apply because Go magically make them irrelevant.
Can you source that? I am one of the most vocal opponents of package managers and versioning in go, but this contradicts everything I believe about it. My believes aren't, that go doesn't need it, but that a) it comes with its own set of problems, that b) those outweigh most of the benefits, IMO and c) that by considering and discussing it carefully, we might be able to come up with an actually innovative new solution to the problems.
Nowhere do I claim that go doesn't have those problems, on the contrary. I'm just arguing that, traditionally, go is a language that prefers doing things right over doing things like they were always done.
No. It is pretty much only a problem in languages with a package manager. Languages without the notion of package versioning don't run into the issue of needing to have a notion of what a version is, clearly. A package manager just helps automatically enforce versioning, it does zero to help you figure out what the correct version is.
Yes, not coming with versioning and a package manager comes with its own disadvantages and pain, no doubt. And we can surely debate which pain outweighs or is worse. But claiming that package managers would solve this problem just isn't true (I wrote the article when the whole "SemVer and package manager for go" debate was taking off and I tried to come up with a better approach).
> It's only a problem in languages where developers thinks "you don't need that". There is this weird belief in the Go community that Go is a miraculous language where good programming practices don't apply because Go magically make them irrelevant.
Can you source that? I am one of the most vocal opponents of package managers and versioning in go, but this contradicts everything I believe about it. My believes aren't, that go doesn't need it, but that a) it comes with its own set of problems, that b) those outweigh most of the benefits, IMO and c) that by considering and discussing it carefully, we might be able to come up with an actually innovative new solution to the problems.
Nowhere do I claim that go doesn't have those problems, on the contrary. I'm just arguing that, traditionally, go is a language that prefers doing things right over doing things like they were always done.
That's kind of interesting, and I'd not considered many of the scenarios mentioned (which apply beyond go).
Perhaps the "correct", but cumbersome thing to do is supply different versions of the API when maintaining backward compatibility and never change the old version.