Our great sponsors
-
InfluxDB
Power Real-Time Data Analytics at Scale. Get real-time insights from all types of time series data with InfluxDB. Ingest, query, and analyze billions of data points in real-time with unbounded cardinality.
-
WorkOS
The modern identity platform for B2B SaaS. The APIs are flexible and easy-to-use, supporting authentication, user identity, and complex enterprise features like SSO and SCIM provisioning.
Re: https://github.com/golang/go/wiki/LoopvarExperiment
I've mainly used Java which doesn't suffer from this particular problem. But I've often heard Java criticized on the grounds it captures values not variables, and that most other languages apparently capture variables. I remember learning Lisp at uni and being taught that it captured variables, for example.
So do other languages suffer from this problem as well? How do they deal with it?
Python will also do something like that. In fact it does something smarter, since Python 3.6 it snips out repeated lines in self-recursive calls: https://github.com/python/cpython/issues/71010
What else would you expect from a structured logging package?
To me it absolutely makes sense as the default and standard for 99% of applications, and the API isn't much unlike something like Zap[0] (a popular Go structured logger).
The attributes aren't an "arbitrary" concept, they're a completely normal concept for structured loggers. Groups are maybe less standard, but reasonable nevertheless.
I'm not sure if you're aware that this is specifically a structured logging package. There already is a "simple" logging package[1] in the sodlib, and has been for ages, and isn't particularly fast either to my knowledge. If you want really fast you take a library (which would also make sure to optimize allocations heavily).
[0]: https://pkg.go.dev/go.uber.org/zap
[1]: https://pkg.go.dev/log
Be aware that there is a performance impact compared to using zerolog directly [0] (my uneducated guess is it is likely due to pointer indirection).
[0]: https://github.com/rs/zerolog/issues/571#issuecomment-166202...