Found this a lot easier to follow. https://blog.howardjohn.info/posts/go-tools-command/
And didn't quite understand the euphoria.
And didn't quite understand the euphoria.
I've done the blank import thing before, it was kinda awkward but not _that_ bad.
> user defined tools are compiled each time they are used
Why compile them each time they are used? Assuming you're compiling them from source, shouldn't they be compiled once, and then have the 'go tool' command reuse the same binaries? I don't see why it compiles them at the time you run the tool, rather than when you're installing dependencies. The benchmarks show a significant latency increase. The author also provided a different approach which doesn't seem to have any obvious downsides, besides not sharing dependency versions (which may or may not be a good thing - that's a separate discussion IMO).
The functionality of `go tool` seems to build on the existing `go run` and the latter already uses the same package compilation cache as `go build`. Subsequent invocations of `go run X` were notably faster than the first invocation long before 1.24. However, it seems that the final executable was never cached before, but now it will be as of 1.24. This benefits both `go run` and `go tool`.
However, this raises the question: do the times reported in the blog reflect the benefit of executable caching, or were they collected before that feature was implemented (and/or is it not working properly)?
Great question! I wasn't aware of the 1.24 optimization when I first wrote the post, but was interested to dig into this deeper. I updated the post: https://blog.howardjohn.info/posts/go-tools-command/#digging....
The tl;dr is...: 1. The new caching impacts the new `go tool` and the existing `go run`. 2. It has a massive benefit. 3. `go tool` is a bit faster than `go run` due to skipping some module resolution phases. 4. Caching is still (relatively) slow for large packages
I'd also note the distinction between `go run example.com/foo@latest` (which as you note must do some network calls to determine the latest version of example.com/foo) and simple `go run example.com/foo` (no @) which will just use the version of foo that's in go.mod -- presumably `go tool foo` is closer to the latter.
Yeah I want none of that. I'll stick with my makefiles and a dedicated "internal/tools" module. Tools routinely force upgrades that break other things, and allowing that is a feature.
you got to have isolation of artefact and tools around to work with it.
it is bonkers to start versioning tools used to build project mixed with artefact dependencies itself. should we include version of VSCode used to type code? how about transitive dependencies of VSCode? how about OS itself to edit files? how about version of LLM model that generated some of this code? where does this stop?
I think some of the euphoria around tracking tooling in the repo is "yes, now I can run a command in the repo and it's as if I spun up a docker container with the CI locally, but it's just regular software running on my machine!" This is a huge improvement if you're used to the minutes-or-hours-long CI cycle being your only interaction with the "real environment."
The reductio ad absurdum that you describe is basically "a snapshot of the definitions of all the container images in our CI pipeline." It's not a ridiculous example, it's how many large projects run.
my key concern whether tools to build project have to be in the same pool as project itself (that may or may not use tools to build/edit/maintain/debug it).
The tradeoff with this approach is that you lose any sort of agnosticism when you drop into the language specific tooling. So now if you work at a corporation and have to deal with multiple toolchains every engineer now needs to learn and work with new build tooling X times for each supported language. This always happens to some extent - there’s always going to be some things that use the language’s specific task runner constructs - but keeping that minimal is usually a good idea in this scenario.
Your complaint feels to me that it is about poorly implemented CI systems that heavily leverage container based workflows (of which there are many in the wild). If implemented properly with caching, really the main overhead you are paying in these types of setups is the virtualization overhead (on macs) and the cold start time for the engine. For most people and in most cases neither will make a significant difference in the wall clock time of their loop, comparatively.
you got to draw a line somewhere.
in my opinion, "if dependency code is not linked nor compiled-into nor copied as a source (e.g. model weights, or other artefacts) then it must not be included into dependency tree of project source code"
that still means, you are free to track versions/hashes/etc. of tools and their dependencies. just do it separately.
Does everyone need to use the same IDE? Obviously not. Same C++ compiler? Ideally yes. (And yes you can do that in some cases, e.g. Bazel and its ilk allow you to vendor compilers.)
linters, formatters, reproducible codegen should be tracked. their output is deterministic and you want to enforce that in CI in case people forget. the rest doesn't really affect the code (well windows OS and their CRLF do but git has eol attributes to control that).
again, v1.24 seems to be okay here. go mod pruning should keep nodes in tree clear from polluting each other.
This is why we pin versions. Go tool is common sense, allowing for any old tool version in the build chain invites failure.
In other words, no need to mix "dependencies" and "dev dependencies" together.
Blending those dependencies already causes somewhat frequent problems for library owners / for users of libraries that do this. Encouraging it is not what I would consider beneficial.