earthly VS golang-standards/project-layout

Also CACHE keyword, for cache mounts. Makes incremental tools like compilers work well in the context of dockerfiles and layer caches.

That can extend beyond just producing docker iamges as well. Under the covers the CACHE keyword is how lib/rust in Earthly makes building Rust artifacts in CI faster.

https://github.com/earthly/earthly/issues/1399

earthly

A few of us will be around to answer questions if anyone has any. I myself worked only worked on the chmod feature which was pretty trivial.

https://github.com/earthly/earthly/pull/1821

[2] https://github.com/earthly/earthly/releases/tag/v0.7.0

# cat Makefile BIN_PATH = $(shell pwd)/bin $(shell mkdir $(BIN_PATH) &>/dev/null) EARTHLY = $(BIN_PATH)/earthly earthly: ifeq (,$(wildcard $(EARTHLY))) curl -L https://github.com/earthly/earthly/releases/download/v0.6.23/earthly-linux-amd64 -o $(EARTHLY) chmod +x $(EARTHLY) endif

I started to bring awareness to the Earthfiles goofy license, but it seems they've switched to MPL! https://github.com/earthly/earthly/releases/tag/v0.6.15

The (unfortunately named) Dagger is also an entry into that space: https://github.com/dagger/dagger#readme (Apache 2)

- https://github.com/earthly/earthly/tree/main/analytics

Another *monster* difference is that Dagger is (at least currently) Apache 2: https://github.com/dagger/dagger/blob/v0.2.4/LICENSE but Earthly went with BSL: https://github.com/earthly/earthly/blob/v0.6.12/LICENSE

That means I'm more likely to submit bugs and patches to Dagger, and I won't touch Earthly

Example build steps for a go application

cmd: here where we will leave the main.go that starts our app.

> https://github.com/golang-standards/project-layout

The name of the repo is really and intentionally misleading. rsc filled an issue there to point this out, but the repo maintainer just disabled issues altogether so now no one can see it.

Even when it would not have such parasitic name, many seasoned Go programmers, me included, consider the self-proclaimed "Standard Go project Layout" as the opposite of what is good and advisable.

Unfortunately, the name just works, so it is being recommended all over the Internet since its inception.

Your comment makes it look as if you're saying you hate the Go development team, but it seems that isn't the case.

I get a little of what you're saying, I wouldn't say I hate anyone, but I strongly dislike how a lot of projects are organized. I think a lot stems from https://github.com/golang-standards/project-layout , which pretended to be standard and was so (ab)used one of the creators opened an issue about it. If you look at the actual Go src, it's much, much cleaner.

So you don't get blind sided for self proclaimed "standards" that are not

I am writing a project that has two components: a CLI and a library. I've organised the project as follows (as per organisation instructions):

Familiarity with the standard Golang project structure, which you can find here.

I've been learning how to build web applications using different frameworks and languages for a while now, such as Laravel with its MVC architecture and Node.js following the 'Hapi.js Way'. As I'm trying to create a new portfolio project using Go, I found myself contemplating over the ideal project structure. I wanted something that not only aligns with the standard Go project layout, but also makes the code both easy to write and understand. That's when I stumbled upon the concept of Hexagonal Architecture, as showcased in Netflix's engineering blog. The idea of seamlessly swapping infrastructures with minimal code changes fascinated me, and I decided to implement it in my new project.