Hacker News Reader

Comment by Groxx | Hacker News Reader

But also strings are actually immutable sometimes (at the very least when hardcoded), and they can be converted to a `[]byte` slice that looks mutable, but panics when modified. AFAIK no other slice-like data in Go behaves like this.

Fun!

View on HN

This is misleading enough it's a lie; to do this you need to use a function named `unsafe.Pointer` with a type named `reflect.StringHeader`, not just `[]byte` and `string`.

It means there is special protection for string-data that is not available to anything else, and that library-authors get panic reports about immutable byte slices. To that degree, it's something that the specialized type exposes you to but the type system does not adequately protect or signal.

But yes, AFAIK this requires use of `unsafe`. Which does change things, and puts the blame for misuse squarely on the immutable-byte-slice creators.

> It means there is special protection for strings that is not available to anything else

Lots of languages have no C/C++-style const objects yet immutable strings. It's weird to pick on Go specifically for this. (Since it's the JVM model, at this point it may even be a majority of mainstream languages.)

If you mean specifically the panic when modifying a static string, is this not just the default `mprotect` on rodata? You can do that to any memory page you want. It's a feature of the kernel's memory management, not the type system or even the language runtime.

> library-authors get panic reports about immutable byte slices.

I'm really skeptical this happens in any meaningful amount. Go offers the feature to transform a byte slice you know you won't want anymore into a string without a memory allocation; or to pass a string to a function which wants a []byte and will not mutate it, usually to wrap an optimized implementation working on both strings and []byte. Modifying a string's contents is always undefined behavior, even if it doesn't panic immediately - the compiler will assume strings are immutable and make "as if" judgements accordingly.

> Since it's the JVM model

Java model. Kotlin collections are immutable by default (not sure about Scala, but I suspect they behave the same).

I'm pretty sure it's the JVM model. Kotlin collections are "immutable" in that they have no mutating accessors, which is not the same thing as a memory region defined to be immutable by the specification which can be relied on to e.g. trivialize certain compiler optimizations. (I plead ignorance about Kotlin Native, maybe it does such things.)

You can also look at what kinds of things are allowed in class constant pools; you will not find any collections.

https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jvms/se7/html/jvms-4.ht...

If you specifically mean RO memory pages, then yes, thats not the same thing. The language and the runtime will enforce collection immutability though, throwing an exception if you attempt to mutate. Poking at the underlying byte code will defeat this, of course.

It seems pretty absurd to me that you would blame Go’s design for silly things people do with unsafe. Yes, I wish ago had more/better immutability semantics and it’s slightly odd that strings are immutable but other types are not, but griping that something bad happened when you used a package called “unsafe” is pretty silly.

I don't think you can convert a string to []byte without unsafe except by copying?

Agreed. You can copy a string into a byte slice, but I don’t think you can convert one into a byte slice that panics on mutation.

Is it panicking on mutation because Go has some special logic, or is it panicking because the text segment is PROT_READ? If it's the latter, sure you can do that too.

I don’t know what PROT_READ is, but as far as I know, Go doesn’t allow you to convert a string into a byte slice apart from ‘unsafe’ (and presumably you’re free to modify that without panicking, but even if not, you used unsafe so the onus is on you to know what you’re doing). There’s syntax support for creating a byte slice by copying a string’s data, but that won’t panic on mutation.

This is a pretty good vignette of how Go is designed. "Users don't need this feature (immutability, polymorphism, etc.), let's not include it. Ah crap, turns out we actually need it for a core language feature. Is there a lesson we can take away here? Nah, just make an ad-hoc implementation of the functionality in this one place."

"X for me but not for thee" is very much the vibe Go gives me, yeah.

I mean, I have completely replaced my adhoc Python use with it and I'm much happier. But it's terrifying to use to build large systems.

Part of it is that "large systems" are almost all combinations of small systems with proto boundaries, so it's not much of an actual risk unless you're making giant monolith code.

"Proto" meaning protobuffers?

I think it rather "communication via some protocol" in general.

In other words if we are not talking about giant monolith - we have N small systems to begin with.

I meant specifically protobuffers in that case, but sure, that works.

For what it’s worth it sounds no worse than Java: you have immutable strings but you have no way to enforce that you can’t modify something that you have recieved, which is why the underlying char array for a string has to be defensively copied if the user asks for `asArray()` or whatever it is.

Strings being immutable doesn’t seem like a special case, though. The underlying mutable array is just encapsulated, which is something that you can implement yourself. (But reflection… maybe you can break the rules with reflection.)

No worse, possibly better, yeah. In a fair number of ways I prefer it over Java, e.g. reflection being so limited makes code dramatically easier to understand with confidence, because a large number of common reflection shenanigans in Java simply can't exist at all in Go. The clean slate and lack of inheritance also means the incredible towers of inheritance insanity simply don't exist - it's wonderful.

But I work on a pretty big system. The near-inability to both efficiently and safely abstract things is a big problem, and it'll be years before mature uses of generics truly start to address that... when it even can. Then I miss Java quite a lot. Or maybe more accurately Kotlin. Or sophisticated code generation and bytecode modification. Or MAT. Or...

I don't think you can reflect onto the standard library anymore, with the recent "strong encapsulation".

Java gets a pass because it was early. Go had time to learn from its mistakes and…just refused to do so.

Const is a hard language feature to design well. There are a lot of pitfalls in the way const is used in C++ and TypeScript (I’m including “readonly” in the discussion).

Rust gets it right, but Rust is relatively complicated.

The languages which are most similar to Go are Java and C#, both of which also lack const types, or have a very limited version of constness.

What are some of these pitfalls in C++'s const design? I assume the issue is that it's difficult to guarantee const correctness as long as you have the ability to fiddle with pointers?

Function signatures showing when a parameter gets modified and when not (such as in Rust, or even in properly const-speckled C++) would benefit Go, but I'm not sure how difficult it'd be to implement that. I could see it being difficult considering that one of Go's core features (slices) results in opaque and overlapping memory ownership.

I don’t think you can fairly call go’s generics an “ad-hoc” implementation. They added syntax for it.

I think in this context "ad hoc" refers to the context in which that syntax was added. IIRC the original creators were against generics ever being added to Golang, so they wouldn't have thought about their eventual introduction when choosing Go's initial syntax. The result is that the generics that eventually were added feel awkward and "bolted on" to many people.

(I don't have any strong opinions on it personally, because I'm not invested in that particular ecosystem. I'm merely attempting to distil what I've heard from other people.)

go's authors were never against generics, they just didn't consider them a table stakes feature

go's generics are pretty good, i've never heard anyone disparage them as "bolted on" or hard to use

Maybe you shouldn't play game of telephone like that.

Go generics are exceptionally well designed.

The reason it took so long for Go to get generics is because Go designers took their time to arrive at a design that fits with the rest of Go.

It's not rushed, it's not "bolted on".

They did several designs that they rejected before they accepted the design that got implemented.

This is a truly unreal level of blub paradox and/or brown nosing. It's almost a complete inversion of reality.

Go's maintainers had to be beaten into bolting on a poorly-done implementation of polymorphism over like a decade. I can't imagine anyone who's used any language with polymorphism baked in to the design describing Go's implementation as "exceptionally well designed". If this is a Poe's law thing and you're just joking, then you got me.

If you are going to make such a claim then please back it up rather than state opinions as facts.

https://go101.org/generics/888-the-status-quo-of-go-custom-g...

Yeah. Go generics are quite crippled. I'm still very, very glad that they exist though - even crippled, they're a vast improvement.

I think they took a... rather extremely-conservative step towards what their generics will eventually be, at which point they'll probably be pretty reasonable. As it stands now they're kinda weird and and very incomplete, though thankfully simple (in behavior).

They did at least leave syntactic and semantic room to improve them though, so I think it'll happen eventually. It was cut off at a safe point. They just need to be brow-beaten further, hopefully this small success won't stop the pressure.

I'm a big fan of Go, have been using it since r59 (pre 1.0), professionally working with it the past ~8 years at one of the earliest companies to adopt it.

The fact that you cannot have a generic method at all, and instead have to rewrite methods as functions.. that seems like a pretty glaring flaw.

I'm happy Go got some form of generics, definitely, but they really do feel bolted on to the language.

I haven’t heard many gripes about the syntax, but I have heard plenty of gripes about how long it took them to add them. Frankly my biggest grievance with Go’s generics is the goofy dictionary implementation that makes performance difficult to reason about. I also think the people who complain the loudest about missing generics were often just unaware that there are other (often simpler) ways to achieve the same thing—it often feels like people were just angry that Go didn’t look exactly like $theirFaveLang. There are definitely some use cases that are improved by generics, but most complaints were about avoiding writing relatively simple loops (iterator chains are more readable in the trivial cases, but quickly become less readable particularly when you need to short circuit on errors and so on—a loop is often cleaner, clearer, and faster to implement).

I had to add a code generator, because of the lack of generics

Yeah, like I said, there are some cases where generics are genuinely helpful. It’s just a small percentage of the code I tend to write (generics have been out for quite a while, and I still avoid them in Go despite my familiarity with languages like Rust, TypeScript, etc that use them extensively).

When you finally cave and jury-rig bolt on language features like a decade after the fact, that's not quite as ad-hoc as what they had for the first decade (generics for builtins only), but it's still pretty ad-hoc in the sense of "not being derived from a coherent theory"

Which modern languages do const properly?

Rust and Haskell come to mind.

Any ML derived language.

I mean, what language got everything exactly right from day 0? Yes, Go started from a minimalist position, but that’s been a wildly successful decision—Go lacks a lot of the cruft of other languages. Go is an easily understandable language, it compiles super quickly, it has top notch tooling (e.g., compiling almost any Go project on any system with ‘go build’ and even cross compile by changing a couple of env vars), it compiles to relatively small[^1] static binaries by default, and it does all of this with pretty good performance.

[^1]: Someone is going to come in with some rant about how big a “hello world” binary is compared to C, as if this is emblematic of some real-world use case.

A cynical view is that 80% of Go's success is a result of the excellent tooling, and the fact that it's associated for and pushed by Google, while the underlying language is "mediocre" at best.

In theory I agree with Go's minimalist perspective, it just also feels inconsistent, and like they made a whole lot of bad decisions along the way. Favoring C-style enums over proper sum-types is one of the biggest one, and ties into Go's error handling, which continues to be a major talking point.

Is the excellent tooling not also a property of a minimal language? Lisp has the "least" syntax/semantics and the best tooling, because it's so easy to write tools. Go has more complex syntax/semantics, but still much easier to wrangle e.g. control flow out of an AST, compared to other Algol derivatives.

I fully agree with the enums thing—that’s by far my biggest gripe with the language. But even still, I can be a lot more productive in Go than I can in any other mainstream language, including languages that have sum types (Rust, OCaml, etc) which isn’t to say sum types make me less productive but rather that those languages have other productivity issues that outweigh the benefits afforded by sum types. Basically, Go gets a whole lot of little things right that most languages miss, but everyone fixates on “generics” and “sum types” which are, overall, quite small things IMHO.

Ironically that is exactly the same approach they had with C, so at least they are consistent.

"Although we entertained occasional thoughts about implementing one of the major languages of the time like Fortran, PL/I, or Algol 68, such a project seemed hopelessly large for our resources: much simpler and smaller tools were called for. All these languages influenced our work, but it was more fun to do things on our own."

-- https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/chist.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com