proposal | rfcs | |
---|---|---|
46 | 666 | |
3,290 | 5,711 | |
0.4% | 0.9% | |
4.4 | 9.8 | |
about 2 months ago | 3 days ago | |
Go | Markdown | |
BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License | Apache License 2.0 |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
proposal
-
Does Go Have Subtyping?
The conclusion is pretty weird to me.
Go does rely on monomorphization for generics, just like C++ and Rust. The only difference is that this is an implementation detail, so Go can group multiple monomorphizations without worrying about anything else [1]. This form of hybrid monomorphization is being increasingly common, GHC does that and Rust is also trying to do so [2], so nothing special for Go here.
On the other hand, explaining variance as a lifted polymorphism is---while not incorrect per se---also weird in part because a lack of variance is at worst just an annoyance. You can always make an adopter to unify heterogeneous types. Rust calls it `Box`, Go happens to call it an interface type instead. Both languages even do not allow heterogeneous concrete (or runtime) types in a single slice! So variance has no use in both languages because no concrete types are eligible for variance anyway.
I think the conclusion got weird because the term "subtyping" is being misused. Subtyping, in the broadest sense, is just a non-trivial type relation. Many languages thus have a multiple notion of subtyping, often (almost) identical to each other but sometimes not. Go in particular has a lot of them, and even some relation like "T implements U" is a straightforward record subtyping. It is no surprise that the non-uniform value representation has the largest influence, and only monomorphization schemes and hetero-to-homogeneous adapters vary in this particular group.
[1] https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/master/design/generi...
[2] https://rust-lang.github.io/compiler-team/working-groups/pol...
- Backward Compatibility, Go 1.21, and Go 2
-
Defining interfaces in C++ with ‘concepts’ (C++20)
https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/master/design/generi...
-
Why Turborepo is migrating from Go to Rust – Vercel
Go Team wanted generics since the start. It was always a problem implementing them without severely hurting compile time and creating compilation bloat. Rust chose to ignore this problem, by relying on LLVM backend for optimizations and dead code elimination.
-
Are you a real programmer if you use VS Code? No Says OP in the byte sized drama
Hold up, did the members actually push this forward or was support just often memed about and suddenly this proposal was made: https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/master/design/43651-type-parameters.md
-
Major standard library changes in Go 1.20
As far as I can tell, the consensus for generics was "it will happen, but we really want to get this right, and it's taking time."
I know some people did the knee-jerk attacks like "Go sucks, it should have had generics long ago" or "Go is fine, it doesn't need generics". I don't think we ever needed to take those attitudes seriously.
> Will error handling be overhauled or not?
Error handling is a thorny issue. It's the biggest complaint people have about Go, but I don't think that exceptions are obviously better, and the discriminated unions that power errors in Rust and some other languages are conspicuously absent from Go. So you end up with a bunch of different proposals for Go error handling that are either too radical or little more than syntactic sugar. The syntactic sugar proposals leave much to be desired. It looks like people are slowly grinding through these proposals until one is found with the right balance to it.
I honestly don't know what kind of changes to error handling would appear in Go 2 if/when it lands, and I think the only reasonable answer right now is "wait and find out". You can see a more reasonable proposal here:
https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/master/design/go2dra...
Characterizing it as a "lack of vision" does not seem fair here--I started using Rust back in the days when boxed pointers had ~ on them, and it seemed like it took Rust a lot of iterations to get to the current design. Which is fine. I am also never quite sure what is going to get added to future versions of C#.
I am also not quite sure why Go gets so much hate on Hacker News--as far as I can tell, people have more or less given up on criticizing Java and C# (it's not like they've ossified), and C++ is enough of a dumpster fire that it seems gauche to point it out.
-
Go's Future v2 and Go's Versioning
There will almost certainly not be a Go 2 in that sense. There is a Go 2 transition doc which extensively discusses what "Go 2" means. The conclusion is
-
What's the status of the various "Go 2" proposals?
As it says on that page - those were not proposals. They were draft ideas to get feedback on. You can see the list of proposals in this repository: https://github.com/golang/proposal
-
An alternative memory limiter for Go based on GC tuning and request throttling
Approximately a year ago we faced with a necessity of limiting Go runtime memory consumption and started work on our own memory limiter. At the same time, Michael Knyszek published his well-known proposal. Now we have our own implementation quite similar to what has been released in 1.18, but there are two key differences:
- Shaving 40% off Google’s B-Tree Implementation with Go Generics
rfcs
-
Ask HN: What April Fools jokes have you noticed this year?
RFC: Add large language models to Rust
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3603
- Rust to add large language models to the standard library
-
Why does Rust choose not to provide `for` comprehensions?
Man, SO and family has really gone downhill. That top answer is absolutely terrible. In fact, if you care, you can literally look at the RFC discussion here to see the actual debate: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/582
Basically, `for x in y` is kind of redundant, already sorta-kinda supported by itertools, and there's also a ton of macros that sorta-kinda do it already. It would just be language bloat at this point.
Literally has nothing to do with memory management.
- Coroutines in C
-
Uv: Python Packaging in Rust
Congrats!
> Similarly, uv does not yet generate a platform-agnostic lockfile. This matches pip-tools, but differs from Poetry and PDM, making uv a better fit for projects built around the pip and pip-tools workflows.
Do you expect to make the higher level workflow independent of requirements.txt / support a platform-agnostic lockfile? Being attached to Rye makes me think "no".
Without being platform agnostic, to me this is dead-on-arrival and unable to meet the "Cargo for Python" aim.
> uv supports alternate resolution strategies. By default, uv follows the standard Python dependency resolution strategy of preferring the latest compatible version of each package. But by passing --resolution=lowest, library authors can test their packages against the lowest-compatible version of their dependencies. (This is similar to Go's Minimal version selection.)
> uv allows for resolutions against arbitrary target Python versions. While pip and pip-tools always resolve against the currently-installed Python version (generating, e.g., a Python 3.12-compatible resolution when running under Python 3.12), uv accepts a --python-version parameter, enabling you to generate, e.g., Python 3.7-compatible resolutions even when running under newer versions.
This is great to see though!
I can understand it being a flag on these lower level, directly invoked dependency resolution operations.
While you aren't onto the higher level operations yet, I think it'd be useful to see if there is any cross-ecosystem learning we can do for my MSRV RFC: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3537
How are you handling pre-releases in you resolution? Unsure how much of that is specified in PEPs. Its something that Cargo is weak in today but we're slowly improving.
- RFC: Rust Has Provenance
-
The bane of my existence: Supporting both async and sync code in Rust
In the early days of Rust there was a debate about whether to support "green threads" and in doing that require runtime support. It was actually implemented and included for a time but it creates problems when trying to do library or embedded code. At the time Go for example chose to go that route, and it was both nice (goroutines are nice to write and well supported) and expensive (effectively requires GC etc). I don't remember the details but there is a Rust RFC from when they removed green threads:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/0806be4f282144cfcd55b...
-
Why stdout is faster than stderr?
I did some more digging. By RFC 899, I believe Alex Crichton meant PR 899 in this repo:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/899
Still, no real discussion of why unbuffered stderr.
- Go: What We Got Right, What We Got Wrong
-
Ask HN: What's the fastest programming language with a large standard library?
Rust has had a stable SIMD vector API[1] for a long time. But, it's architecture specific. The portable API[2] isn't stable yet, but you probably can't use the portable API for some of the more exotic uses of SIMD anyway. Indeed, that's true in .NET's case too[3].
Rust does all this SIMD too. It just isn't in the standard library. But the regex crate does it. Indeed, this is where .NET got its SIMD approach for multiple substring search from in the first place[4]. ;-)
You're right that Rust's standard library is conservatively vectorized though[5]. The main thing blocking this isn't the lack of SIMD availability. It's more about how the standard library is internally structured, and the fact that things like substring search are not actually defined in `std` directly, but rather, in `core`. There are plans to fix this[6].
[1]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/arch/index.html
[2]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/simd/index.html
[3]: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/72fae0073b35a404f03c3...
[4]: https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pull/88394#issuecomment-16...
[5]: https://github.com/BurntSushi/memchr#why-is-the-standard-lib...
[6]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3469
What are some alternatives?
go - The Go programming language
rust - Empowering everyone to build reliable and efficient software.
vscode-gremlins - Gremlins tracker for Visual Studio Code: reveals invisible whitespace and other annoying characters
bubblewrap - Low-level unprivileged sandboxing tool used by Flatpak and similar projects
avendish - declarative polyamorous cross-system intermedia objects
crates.io - The Rust package registry
too-many-lists - Learn Rust by writing Entirely Too Many linked lists
polonius - Defines the Rust borrow checker.
go-generic-optional - Implementation of Optionals in Go using Generics
Rust-for-Linux - Adding support for the Rust language to the Linux kernel.
go_chainable - With generics, allowing chainable .Map(func(...)).Reduce(func(...)) syntax in go
rust-gc - Simple tracing (mark and sweep) garbage collector for Rust