cadey/xesite
cadey
/
xesite
1
0
Fork 1
Code Issues Pull Requests 1 Projects Releases Wiki Activity

blog/we-have-go-2: more changes from the park

This commit is contained in:
Cadey Ratio 2022-05-06 14:28:46 -04:00 committed by Xe Iaso
parent 6106faffcb
commit 9899302c76
1 changed files with 249 additions and 81 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

330
blog/we-have-go-2.markdown
View File

@ -8,12 +8,12 @@ tags:
- modules
---
I have been using Go since Go 1.4. Since I started using Go so long ago, I’ve
I've been using Go since Go 1.4. Since I started using Go so long ago, I’ve
seen the language evolve significantly. The Go I write today is roughly the same
Go as the Go I wrote back when I was still learning the language, but overall
it’s evolved and changed into something similar yet different feeling in
practice. Thinking back over the years, here are some of the biggest ticket
items that stand out for me:
items that really changed how I use Go on a daily basis:
* The compiler rewrite in Go
* Go modules
@ -28,18 +28,28 @@ have gotten as lucky as I have as consistently as I have.
Releasing a “Go 2” has become a philosophical and political challenge due to the
forces that be. “Go 2” has kind of gotten the feeling of “this is never going to
happen is it” with how the political forces within and without the Go team are
happen, is it?” with how the political forces within and without the Go team are
functioning. They seem to have been incrementally releasing new features and
using version gating in `go.mod` to make it easier on people. This is pretty
great and I am well in favour of this approach, but with all of the changes that
have built up there really should be a Go 2 by this point. If only to make no
significant changes and tag what we have today as Go 2.
using version gating in `go.mod` to make it easier on people instead of a big
semver-breaking release.
This is pretty great and I am well in favour of this approach, but with all of
the changes that have built up there really should be a Go 2 by this point. If
only to make no significant changes and tag what we have today as Go 2.
<xeblog-conv name="Cadey" mood="coffee">Take everything I say here with a grain
of salt the size of east Texas. I am not an expert in programming language
design and I do not pretend to be one on TV. I am also not a member of the Go
team nor do I pretend to be one or see myself becoming one in the
future.</xeblog-conv>
future.
If you are on the Go team and think that something I said here was observably
wrong, please [contact me](/contact) so I can correct it. I have tried to
contain my personal feelings or observations about things to these conversation
snippets.</xeblog-conv>
This is a look back at the huge progress that has been made since Go 1 released
and what I'd consider to be the headline features of Go 2.
## The Compiler Rewrite in Go
@ -59,6 +69,23 @@ point where Go didn’t have the easy to use cross-compiling superpower it
currently has, and I think that is a more sure marker of success than anything
else.</xeblog-conv>
This one feature is probably at the heart of more CI flows, debian package
releases and other workflows than we can know. It's really hard to understate
how simple this kind of thing makes distributing software for other
architectures, especially given that macOS has just switched over to aarch64
CPUs.
Having the compiler be self-hosting does end up causing a minor amount of
grief for people wanting to bootstrap a Go compiler from absolute source code
on a new Linux distribtion (and slightly more after the minimum Go compiler
version to compile Go will be raised to Go 1.17 with the release of Go 1.19
in about 6 months from the time of this post being written). This isn't too
big of a practical issue given how fast the compiler builds, but it is a
nonzero amount of work. The bootstrapping can be made simpler with
[gccgo](https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gccgo/), a GCC frontend that is mostly
compatible with the semantics and user experience of the Go compiler that
Google makes.
## Go Modules
In Go's dependency model, you have a folder that contains all your Go code
@ -84,37 +111,40 @@ Just delete the `pkg` folder and poof, it’s all gone. This was great when you
needed to free up a bunch of disk space really quickly because over months the
small amount of incremental compiler state can really add up.
The go compiler would fetch any missing packages from the internet at build time
The Go compiler would fetch any missing packages from the internet at build time
so things Just Worked™️. This makes it utterly trivial to check out a project and
then build/run it. That combined with `go get` to automatically just figure
things out and install them made installing programs written in Go so easy that
it’s almost magic.
it’s almost magic. This combined with Go's preference for making static binaries
as much as possible meant that even if the user didn't have Go installed you could
easily make a package to hand off to your users.
It was conceptually simple to reason about. Go code goes in the GOPATH. The best
place for it was in the GOPATH. There's no reason to put it anywhere else.
The GOPATH was conceptually simple to reason about. Go code goes in the GOPATH. The
best place for it was in the GOPATH. There's no reason to put it anywhere else.
Everything was organized into its place and it was lovely.
This wasn’t perfect though. There were notable flaws in this setup that were
easy to run into in practice.
easy to run into in practice:
There wasn't a good way to make sure that everyone was using the _same copies_
of every library. People did add vendoring tools later to check that everyone
was using the same copies of every package, but this also introduced problems
when one project used one version of a dependency and another project used
another in ways that were mutually incompatible.
The process to get the newest version of a dependency was to grab the latest
commit off of the default branch of that git repo. There was support for SVN,
mercurial and fossil, but in practice Git was the most used one so it’s almost
not worth mentioning the other version control systems. This also left you at
the mercy of other random people having good code security sense and required
you to audit your dependencies, but this is fairly standard across ecosystems.
Dependency names were case sensitive on Linux but not on Windows or macOS.
Arguably this is a "Windows and macOS are broken for backwards compatibility
reasons" thing, but this did bite me at random times without warning.
The default location for the GOPATH created a folder in your home directory.
* There wasn't a good way to make sure that everyone was using the _same copies_
of every library. People did add vendoring tools later to check that everyone
was using the same copies of every package, but this also introduced problems
when one project used one version of a dependency and another project used
another in ways that were mutually incompatible.
* The process to get the newest version of a dependency was to grab the latest
commit off of the default branch of that git repo. There was support for SVN,
mercurial and fossil, but in practice Git was the most used one so it’s almost
not worth mentioning the other version control systems. This also left you at
the mercy of other random people having good code security sense and required
you to audit your dependencies, but this is fairly standard across ecosystems.
* Dependency names were case sensitive on Linux but not on Windows or macOS.
Arguably this is a "Windows and macOS are broken for backwards compatibility
reasons" thing, but this did bite me at random times without warning.
* If the wrong random people deleted their GitHub repos, there's a chance your
builds could break unless your GOPATH had the packages in it already. Then you
could share that with your coworkers or the build machine somehow, maybe even
upload those packages to a git repository to soft-fork it.
* The default location for the GOPATH created a folder in your home directory.
<xeblog-conv name="Cadey" mood="coffee">Yeah, yeah, this default was added later
but still people complained about having to put the GOPATH somewhere at first.
@ -125,11 +155,6 @@ the defaults without having to set an environment variable). I don't personally
understand the arguments people have for wanting to keep their home directory
"clean", but the arguments are valid regardless.</xeblog-conv>
If the wrong random people deleted their GitHub repos, there's a chance your
builds could break unless your GOPATH had the packages in it already. Then you
could share that with your coworkers or the build machine somehow, maybe even
uploading those packages to a git repository to soft-fork it.
Overall I think GOPATH was a net good thing for Go. It had its downsides, but as
far as these things go it was a very opinionated place to start from. This is
something typical to Go (much to people's arguments), but the main thing that it
@ -140,6 +165,8 @@ languages could learn a lot from. It's great for monorepos because it basically
treats all your Go code as one big monorepo. So many other languages don’t
really translate well to working in a monorepo context like Go does.
### Vendoring
That making sure everyone had the same versions of everything problem ended up
becoming a big problem in practice. I'm assuming that the original intent of the
GOPATH was to be similar to how Google's internal monorepo worked, where
@ -190,7 +217,10 @@ needs of the outside world very easily.
<xeblog-conv name="Cadey" mood="enby">I can't speak for how `godep` or `glide`
works, I never really used them enough to have a solid opinion. I do remember
using [`vendor`](https://github.com/bmizerany/vendor) in my own projects though.
That had no real dependency resolution algorithm to speak of.</xeblog-conv>
That had no real dependency resolution algorithm to speak of because it assumed
that you had everything working locally when you vendored the code.</xeblog-conv>
### `dep`
After a while the Go team worked with people in the community to come up with an
"official experiment" in tracking dependencies called `dep`. `dep` was a tool
@ -223,14 +253,27 @@ repositories. I don't think I practically ran into this, but I'm sure someone
reading this right now found themselves in `dep` hell and probably has a hell of
a war story around it.
### vgo and Modules
This lead the Go team to come up with a middle path between the unrestricted
madness of GOPATH and something more maximal like `dep`. They eventually called
this Go modules and the core reasons for it are outlined in [this series of
technical posts](https://research.swtch.com/vgo). Apparently the development of
Go modules came out as a complete surprise, even to the core developer team of
`dep`. I'm fairly sure this lead my manager to take up woodworking as his main
non work side hobby, I can only wonder about the kind of resentment this created
for other parts of the `dep` team.
technical posts](https://research.swtch.com/vgo).
<xeblog-conv name="Mara" mood="hacker">These posts are a very good read and I'd
highly suggest reading them if you've never seem then before. It outlines the
problem space and the justification for the choices that Go modules ended up
using. I don't agree with all of what is said there, but overall it's well
worth reading at least once if you want to get an idea of the inspirations
that lead to Go modules.</xeblog-conv>
Apparently the development of Go modules came out as a complete surprise,
even to the core developer team of `dep`. I'm fairly sure this lead my
manager to take up woodworking as his main non work side hobby, I can only
wonder about the kind of resentment this created for other parts of the
`dep` team. They were under the impression that `dep` was going to be the
future of the ecosystem (likely under the subcommand `go dep`) and then had
the rug pulled out from under their feet.
<xeblog-conv name="Cadey" mood="coffee">The `dep` team was as close as we've
gotten for having people in the _actual industry_ using Go _in production_
@ -258,14 +301,22 @@ disadvantages out of the gate with Go modules. I think that in practice the
disadvantages are limited, but still the fact that it defaults to phoning home
to Google every time you run a Go build without all the dependencies present
locally is kind of questionable. They did make up for this with the checksum
verification database a little, but it's still kinda sus.</xeblog-conv>
verification database a little, but it's still kinda sus.
I'm not aware of any companies I've worked at running their own internal Go
module caching servers, but I ran my own for a very long time.</xeblog-conv>
The earliest version of Go modules basically was a glorified `vendor` folder
manager. This worked out amazingly well and probably made prototyping this a
hell of a lot easier. This worked well enough that we used this in production
for many services at Heroku. We had no real issues with it and most of the
friction was with the fact that most of the existing ecosystem had already been
using `dep` or `glide`.
manager named `vgo`. This worked out amazingly well and probably made
prototyping this a hell of a lot easier. This worked well enough that we used
this in production for many services at Heroku. We had no real issues with it
and most of the friction was with the fact that most of the existing ecosystem
had already been using `dep` or `glide`.
<xeblog-conv name="Mara" mood="Hacker">There was a bit of interoperability glue
that allowed `vgo` to parse the dependency definitions in `dep`, `godep` and
`glide`. This still exists today and helps `go mod init` tell what dependencies
to import into the Go module to aid migration.</xeblog-conv>
If they had shipped this in prod, it probably would have been a huge success. It
would also let people continue to use `dep`, `glide` and `godep`, but just doing
@ -281,6 +332,8 @@ encode the capital letters in a path in a way that works on macOS and Windows
without having to worry about horrifying hacks that are only really in place for
Photoshop to keep working.
### The Subtle Problem of `v2`
However one of the bigger downsides that came with Go modules is what I've been
calling the "v2 landmine" that Semantic Import Versioning gives you. One of the
very earliest bits of Go advice was to make the import paths for version 1 of a
@ -317,10 +370,20 @@ team claims that the right bit of tooling can help ease the pain, but this
tooling never really made it out into the public. I bet it works great inside
google3 though!</xeblog-conv>
When you were upgrading a Go project that already hit major version 2 or
higher to Go modules, adopting Go modules forced maintainers to make another
major version bump because it would break all of the import paths for every
package in the module. This caused some maintainers to meet Go modules with
resistance to avoid confusing their consumers. The workarounds for people that
still used GOPATH using upstream code with Semantic Import Versioning in it
were also kind of annoying at first until the Go team added "minimal module
awareness" to GOPATH mode. Then it was fine.
Overall though, Go modules has been a net positive for the community and for
people wanting to create reliable software in Go. It’s just such a big semantic
break in how the toolchain works that I almost think it would have been easier
to accept if _that_ was Go 2.
for the to accept if _that_ was Go 2. Especially since the semantic of how the
toolchain worked changed so much.
<xeblog-conv name="Mara" mood="hmm">Wait, doesn’t the Go compiler have a
backwards compatibility promise that any code built with Go 1.x works on go
@ -337,7 +400,8 @@ users](https://github.com/golang/go/issues/40276#issuecomment-1109797059) that
aren’t keeping on top of every single change in semantics of toolchains (this
bites me constantly when I need to quick and dirty grab something outside of a
Nix package). I understand _why_ this isn’t a breaking change as far as the
compatibility promise but this feels like a cop-out.</xeblog-conv>
compatibility promise but this feels like a cop-out in my subjective
opinion.</xeblog-conv>
## Contexts
@ -345,41 +409,132 @@ One of Go’s major features is its co-operative threading system that it calls
goroutines. Goroutines are kinda like coroutines that are scheduled by the
scheduler. However there is no easy way to "kill" a goroutine. You have to add
something to the invocation of the goroutine that lets you signal it to stop and
then opt-in the goroutine to stop. This ended up leading to the
[context](https://pkg.go.dev/context) package being created in the standard
then opt-in the goroutine to stop.
Without contexts you would need to do all of this legwork manually. Every
project from the time before contexts still shows signs of this. The best
practice was to make a "stop" channel like this:
```go
stop := make(chan struct{})
```
And then you'd send a cancellation signal like this:
```go
stop <- struct{}{}
```
<xeblog-conv name="Mara" mood="Hacker">The type `struct{}` is an anonymous
structure value that takes 0 bytes in ram. It was suggested to use this as your
stopping signal to avoid unneeded memory allocations.</xeblog-conv>
This did work and was the heart of many event loops, but the main problem with
it is that the signal was only sent _once_. Many other people also followed up
the stop signal by closing the channel:
```go
close(stop)
```
However with naïve stopping logic the closed channel would successfully fire a
zero value of the event. So code like this would still work the way you wanted:
```go
select {
case <- stop:
haltAndCatchFire()
}
```
However if your stop channel was a `chan bool` and you relied on the `bool`
value being `true`, this would fail because the value would be `false`. This
was a bit too brittle for comfortable widespread production use and we ended
up with the [context](https://pkg.go.dev/context) package in the standard
library. A Go context lets you more easily and uniformly handle timeouts and
giving up when there is no more work to be done.
Mara+hacker\ This started as something that existed inside the Google monorepo
that escaped out into the world. They also claim to have an internal tool that
makes [`context.TODO()`](https://pkg.go.dev/context#TODO) useful (probably by
showing you the callsities above that function?), but they never released that
tool as open source so it’s difficult to know where to use it without that added
context.
<xeblog-conv name="Mara" mood="hacker">This started as something that existed
inside the Google monorepo that escaped out into the world. They also claim to
have an internal tool that makes
[`context.TODO()`](https://pkg.go.dev/context#TODO) useful (probably by showing
you the callsities above that function?), but they never released that tool as
open source so it’s difficult to know where to use it without that added
context.</xeblog-conv>
- [ ] Examples of how to thread them in:
- [ ] Basic example using a select statement and a timer to poll the context
timeout vs the timer (let’s pretend the timer is some important but
cancellable event that takes time to process)
- [ ] HTTP request
- [ ] Handling a control-C signal and cancelling a bunch of HTTP request
One of the most basic examples of using contexts comes when you are trying to
stop something from continuing. If you have something that constantly writes
data to clients such as a pub-sub queue, you probably want to stop writing data
to them when the client disconnects. If you have a large number of HTTP requests
to do and only so many workers can make outstanding requests at once, you
want to be able to set a timeout so that after a certain amount of time it gives
up.
Here's an example of using a context in an event processing loop (of course while
pretending that fetching the current time is anything else that isn't a contrived
example to show this concept off):
```go
t := time.NewTicker(30 * time.Second)
ctx, cancel := context.WithCancel(context.Background())
defer cancel()
for {
select {
case <- ctx.Done():
log.Printf("not doing anything more: %v", ctx.Err())
return
case data := <- t.C:
log.Printf("got data: %s", data)
}
}
```
This will have the Go runtime select between two channels, one of them will
emit the current time every 30 seconds and the other will fire when the
`cancel` function is called.
<xeblog-conv name="Mara" mood="happy">Don't worry, you can call the `cancel()`
function multiple times without any issues.</xeblog-conv>
If you want to set a timeout on this (so that the function only tries to run
for 5 minutes), you'd want to change the second line of that example to this:
```go
ctx, cancel := context.WithTimeout(context.Background(), 5 * time.Minute)
```
The context will be automatically cancelled after 5 minutes. You can cancel it
sooner by calling the `cancel()` function should you need to. Anything else in
the stack that is context-aware will automatically cancel as well as the
cancellation signal percolates down the stack and across goroutines.
You can attach this to an HTTP request by using
[`http.NewRequestWithContext`](https://pkg.go.dev/net/http#NewRequestWithContext):
```go
req, err := http.NewRequestWithContext(ctx, http.MethodGet, "https://christine.website/.within/health", nil)
```
And then when you execute the request (such as with `http.DefaultClient.Do(req)`)
the context will automatically be cancelled if it takes too long to fetch the
response.
You can also wire this up to the `Control-c` signal using a bit of code
[like this](https://medium.com/@matryer/make-ctrl-c-cancel-the-context-context-bd006a8ad6ff).
Context cancellation propagates upwards, so you can use this to ensure that things
get stopped properly.
<xeblog-conv name="Mara" mood="hacker">Be sure to avoid creating a "god context"
across your entire app. This is a known anti-pattern and this pattern should only
be used for small command line tools that have an expected run time in the minutes
at worst, not hours like production bearing services.</xeblog-conv>
This is a huge benefit to the language because of how disjointed the process of
doing this before contexts was. Trying to do this before contexts usually made
you create a "stop channel" where you’d feed it a `bool` or a `struct{}{}` to
signal that the other side doesn't need to care anymore. Because this wasn’t in
the core of the language, every single implementation was different and required
learning what the library did.
However I wish that the documentation was a bit more clear as to what they
really offer and had some more examples of how to use them. Without context as
to what contexts do, its documentation can kind of read [like
this](https://christine.website/blog/vanbi-01-08-2019). This can make explaining
what a context is to people kind of annoying.
<xeblog-conv name="Mara" mood="hacker">If you know Lojban, some of the satire in
vanbi may be lost on you. Just pretend you don’t understand any of the words in
there.</xeblog-conv>
doing this before contexts was. Because this wasn’t in the core of the language,
every single implementation was different and required learning what the library
did. Not to mention adapting between libraries could be brittle at best and
confusing at worst.
I understand why they put data into the context type, but in practice I really
wish they didn’t do that. This feature has been abused a lot in my experience.
@ -390,7 +545,8 @@ that would normally be compile time errors into runtime errors.
<xeblog-conv name="Cadey" mood="coffee">I say this as someone who maintains a
library that uses contexts to store [contextually relevant log
fields](https://pkg.go.dev/within.website/ln) as a way to make logs easier to
correlate between.
Arguably you could make the case that people are misusing the
correlate between.

Arguably you could make the case that people are misusing the
tool and of course this is what will happen when you do that but I don't know if
this is really the right thing to tell people.</xeblog-conv>
@ -398,7 +554,19 @@ I wish contexts were in the core of the language from the beginning. I know that
it is difficult to do this in practice (especially on all the targets that Go
supports), but having cancellable syscalls would be so cool. It would also be
really neat if contexts could be goroutine-level globals so you didn’t have to
“pollute” the callsites of every function with them.
"pollute" the callsites of every function with them.
<xeblog-conv name="Cadey" mood="coffee">At the time contexts were introduced,
one of the major arguments I remember hearing against them was that contexts
"polluted" their function definitions and callsites. I can't disagree with this
sentiment, at some level it really does look like contexts propagate "virally"
throughout a codebase.
I think that the net improvements to reliability and understandability of how
things get stopped do make up for this though. Instead of a bunch of separate
ways to cancel work in each individual library you have the best practice in
the standard library. Having contexts around makes it a lot harder to "leak"
goroutines on accident.</xeblog-conv>
## Generics