twirp VS golang-standards/project-layout

The next time I want to build an API, I will probably make use of https://github.com/twitchtv/twirp. I like working with Protobuf and having strongly-typed and well-defined messages, but gRPC is way, way too much. It's obviously a Google product, built for what Google needs.

Use Protobuf for messages, but just use HTTP for transport.

- Twirp (Twitch light version of gRPC, with optional JSON encoding, HTTP1 support and without streaming) - https://github.com/twitchtv/twirp

There is another: twirp

And addition to what was mentioned there are also webrpc and twirp.

If you find one, you maybe also interested in twirp.

Twitch has a great framework for it https://twitchtv.github.io/twirp/docs/intro.html

We have better experience with https://goa.design/ than with https://github.com/twitchtv/twirp

Take a look at Twirp (https://github.com/twitchtv/twirp) open sourced by TwitchTv. It's a lot lighter weight than gRPC. It does use Protobufs but addresses some of the concerns you mentioned, such as being able to test with JSON payloads, works over HTTP 1.1 and HTTP/2, good client libraries, and doesn't require a proxy.

They address your concerns in more detail in the Twirp release announcement (2018) - https://blog.twitch.tv/en/2018/01/16/twirp-a-sweet-new-rpc-f...

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.