proposal
vscode-gremlins
Our great sponsors
proposal | vscode-gremlins | |
---|---|---|
46 | 3 | |
3,276 | 178 | |
0.5% | - | |
4.4 | 7.1 | |
14 days ago | 24 days ago | |
Go | JavaScript | |
BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License | GNU General Public License v3.0 or later |
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
> I wonder: why not go further and say "there will never be a Go 2" in order to eliminate ambiguity about this?
They did, five years ago. Albeit with an “if”.
https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/d661ed19a203000b7c54...
> If the above process works as planned, then in an important sense there never will be a Go 2. Or, to put it a different way, we will slowly transition to new language and library features. We could at any point during the transition decide that now we are Go 2, which might be good marketing. Or we could just skip it (there has never been a C 2.0, why have a Go 2.0?).
> Popular languages like C, C++, and Java never have a version 2. In effect, they are always at version 1.N, although they use different names for that state. I believe that we should emulate them. In truth, a Go 2 in the full sense of the word, in the sense of an incompatible new version of the language or core libraries, would not be a good option for our users. A real Go 2 would, perhaps unsurprisingly, be harmful.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
I did something evil
They actually didn't.
-
On a potential "Partial Monomorphization"
Also take a look at https://github.com/golang/proposal/blob/master/design/generics-implementation-gcshape.md. This is a hybrid approach (like the one you're talking about) the Go compiler takes for its generics implementation. It uses GC allocation size classes ("shapes") to figure out how to group types that need to be monomorphized.
vscode-gremlins
-
Visuo studio has a plugin for detecting those invisible characters. https://github.com/nhoizey/vscode-gremlins You should look for one for your IDE.
-
Expectations for Generics in Go 1.18
On VSCode, I use the Gremlins extension which highlight all those suspicious characters.
What are some alternatives?
go - The Go programming language
awesome-vscode - 🎨 A curated list of delightful VS Code packages and resources.
vscode-javascript-extensions - VS Code extension examples written in in JavaScript
zio-prelude - A lightweight, distinctly Scala take on functional abstractions, with tight ZIO integration
Discord-Tools - VSCode extension allowing the integration of a Discord chat, bot templates, snippets, themes and more!
avendish - declarative polyamorous cross-system intermedia objects
too-many-lists - Learn Rust by writing Entirely Too Many linked lists
golang-set - A simple, battle-tested and generic set type for the Go language. Trusted by Docker, 1Password, Ethereum and Hashicorp.
go-generic-optional - Implementation of Optionals in Go using Generics
go_chainable - With generics, allowing chainable .Map(func(...)).Reduce(func(...)) syntax in go
Nim - Nim is a statically typed compiled systems programming language. It combines successful concepts from mature languages like Python, Ada and Modula. Its design focuses on efficiency, expressiveness, and elegance (in that order of priority).