Go is not an easy language

0
10

Go is not an easy programming language. It is simple in many ways: the syntax
is simple, most of the semantics are simple. But a language is more than just
syntax; it’s about doing useful stuff. And doing useful stuff is not always
easy in Go.

Turns out that combining all those simple features in a way to do something
useful can be tricky. How do you remove an item from an array in Ruby?
list.delete_at(i). And remove entries by value? list.delete(value). Pretty
easy, yeah?

In Go it’s … less easy; to remove the index i you need to do:

list = append(list[:i], list[i+1:]...)

And to remove the value v you’ll need to use a loop:

n := 0
for _, l := range list {
    if l != v {
        list[n] = l
        n++
    }
}
list = list[:n]

Is this unacceptably hard? Not really; I think most programmers can figure out
what the above does even without prior Go experience. But it’s not exactly
easy either. I’m usually lazy and copy these kind of things from the Slice
Tricks
page because I want to focus on actually solving the problem at
hand, rather than plumbing like this.

It’s also easy to get it (subtly) wrong or suboptimal, especially for less
experienced programmers. For example compare the above to copying to a new array
and copying to a new pre-allocated array (make([]string, 0, len(list))):

InPlace             116 ns/op      0 B/op   0 allocs/op
NewArrayPreAlloc    525 ns/op    896 B/op   1 allocs/op
NewArray           1529 ns/op   2040 B/op   8 allocs/op

While 1529ns is still plenty fast enough for many use cases and isn’t something
to excessively worry about, there are plenty of cases where these things do
matter and having the guarantee to always use the best possible algorithm with
list.delete(value) has some value.


Goroutines are another good example. “Look how is it is to start a goroutine!
Just add go and you’re done!” Well, yes; you’re done until you have five
million of those running at the same time and then you’re left wondering where
all your memory went, and it’s not hard to “leak” goroutines by accident either.

There are a number of patterns to limit the number of goroutines, and none of
them are exactly easy. A simple example might be something like:

var (
    jobs    = 20                 
    running = make(chan bool, 3) 
    done    = make(chan bool)    
)

for i := 1; i <= jobs; i++ {
    running <- true 

    
    go func(i int) {
        defer func() {
            <-running      
            if i == jobs { 
                done <- true
            }
        }()

        
        time.Sleep(1 * time.Second)
        fmt.Println(i)
    }(i)
}

<-done 
fmt.Println("done")

There’s a reason I annotated this with some comments: for people not intimately
familiar with Go this may take some effort to understand. This also won’t ensure
that the numbers are printed in order (which may or may not be a requirement).

Go’s concurrency primitives may be simple and easy to use, but combining them to
solve common real-world scenarios is a lot less simple. The original version of
the above example was actually incorrect.


In Simple Made Easy Rich Hickey argues that we shouldn’t confuse “simple”
with “it’s easy to write”: just because you can do something useful in one or
two lines doesn’t mean the underlying concepts – and therefore the entire
program – are “simple” as in “simple to understand”.

I feel there is some wisdom in this; in most cases we shouldn’t sacrifice
“simple” for “easy”, but that doesn’t mean we can’t think at all about how to
make things easier. Just because concepts are simple doesn’t mean they’re easy
to use, can’t be misused, or can’t be used in ways that lead to (subtle) bugs.
Pushing Hickey’s argument to the extreme we’d end up with something like
Brainfuck and that would of course be silly.

Ideally a language should reduce the cognitive load required to reason about its
behaviour; there are many ways to increase this cognitive load: complex
intertwined language features is one of them, and getting “distracted” by
implementing fairly basic things from those simple concepts is another: it’s
another block of code I need to reason about. While I’m not overly concerned
about code formatting or syntax choices, I do think it can matter to reduce this
cognitive load when reading code.

The lack of generics probably plays some part here; implementing a slices
package which does these kind of things in a generic way is hard right now.
Generics makes this possible and also makes things more complex (more language
features are used), but they also make things easier and, arguably, less complex
on other fronts.[1]


Are these insurmountable problems? No. I still use (and like) Go after all. But
I also don’t think that Go is a language that you “could pick up in ~5-10
minutes”, which was the comment that prompted this post; a sentiment I’ve seen
expressed many times.

As a corollary to all of the above; learning the language isn’t just about
learning the syntax to write your ifs and fors; it’s about learning a way of
thinking. I’ve seen many people coming from Python or C♯ try to shoehorn
concepts or patterns from those languages in Go. Common ones include using
struct embedding as inheritance, panics as exceptions, “pseudo-dynamic
programming” with interface{}, and so forth. It rarely ends well, if ever.

I did this as well when I was writing my first Go program; it’s only natural.
And when I started as a Ruby programmed I tried to write Python code in Ruby
(although this works a bit better as the languages are more similar, but there
are still plenty of odd things you can do such as using for loops).

This is why I don’t like it when people get redirected to the Tour of Go to
“learn the language”, as it just teaches basic syntax and little more. It’s nice
as a little, well, tour to get a bit of a feel of the language and see how it
roughly works and what it can roughly do, but it’s ill-suited to actually learn
the language.

Footnotes

  1. Contrary to popular belief the Go team was never “against” generics;
    I’ve seen many comments to the effect of “the Go team doesn’t think
    generics are useful”, but this was never the case. 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here