Over a million developers have joined DZone.
{{announcement.body}}
{{announcement.title}}

Are We There Yet: The Go Generics Debate

DZone's Guide to

Are We There Yet: The Go Generics Debate

Should generics be supported in Go? Some say yes and others say no. Poems aside, read on for an opinion on the discussion.

· Integration Zone
Free Resource

Share, secure, distribute, control, and monetize your APIs with the platform built with performance, time-to-value, and growth in mind. Free 90 day trial 3Scale by Red Hat

At GopherCon a couple weeks ago, Russ Cox gave a talk titled The Future of Go, in which he discussed what the Go community might want to change about the language—particularly for the so-called Go 2.0 milestone—and the process for realizing those changes. Part of that process is identifying real-world use cases through experience reports, which turn an abstract problem into a concrete one and help the core team to understand its significance. Also mentioned in the talk, of course, were generics. Over the weekend, Dave Cheney posted Should Go 2.0 support generics? Allow me to add to the noise.

First, I agree with Dave’s point in that the Go team has two choices: implement templated types and parameterized functions (or some equivalent thereof) or don’t and own that decision. Though I think his example of Haskell programmers owning their differences with imperative programming is a bit of a false equivalence. Haskell is firmly in the functional camp, while Go is firmly in the imperative. While there is overlap between the two, I think most programmers understand the difference. Few people are asking Haskell to be more PHP-like, but I bet a lot more are asking Elm to be more Haskell-like. Likewise, lots of people are asking Go to be more Java-like—if only a little. This is why so many are asking for generics, and Dave says it himself: “Mainstream programmers expect some form of templated types because they’re used to it in the other languages they interact with alongside Go.”

But I digress. The point is that the Go team should not pay any lip service to the generics discussion if they are not going to fully commit to addressing the problem. There is plenty of type theory and prior art. It’s not a technical problem, it’s a philosophical one.

That said, if the Go team decides to say “no” to generics and own that decision, I suspect they will never fully put an end to the discussion. The similarities to other mainstream languages are too close, unlike the PHP/Haskell example, and the case for generics too compelling, unlike the composition-over-inheritance decision. The lack of generics in Go has already become a meme at this point.

Ian Lance Taylor’s recent post shows there is a divide within the Go team regarding generics. He tells the story of how the copy() and append() functions came about, noting that they were added only because of the lack of generics.

The point I want to make here is that because we had no way to write a generic Vector type with an Append method, we wound up adding a special purpose language feature to implement it. A language that supported parameterized types with methods would not have required a special built-in function that only works with slices. An append operation makes sense for other sorts of data structures, such as various kinds of linked lists. The built-in append function can not be used for them.

My biggest complaint on the matter at this point in the language’s life is the doublethink. That is, the mere existence of channels, maps, and slices seems like a contradiction to the argument against generics. The experience reports supporting generics are trivial: every time someone instantiates one of these things. The argument is that having a small number of built-in generic types is substantially different than allowing them to be user-defined. Allowing generic APIs to be strewn about will increase the cognitive load on developers. Yet, at the same time, we’re okay with adding new APIs to the standard library that do not provide compile-time type safety by effectively subverting the type system through the use of interface{}. By using interface{}, we instead push the responsibility of type safety onto users to do it at runtime in precarious fashion for something the compiler could be well-equipped to handle. The argument here is what is the greater cognitive load? More generally, it’s where should the responsibility lie? Considering Go’s lineage and its aim at the “ordinary” programmer, I’d argue safety—in this case—should be the language’s responsibility.

However, we haven’t fully addressed the “complex generic APIs strewn about” argument. Generics are not the source of complexity in API design, poorly designed APIs are. For every bad generic API in Java, I’ll show you a good one. In Go, I would argue more complexity comes from the workarounds to the lack of generics—interface{}, reflection, code duplication, code generation, type assertions—than from introducing them into the language, not to mention the performance cost with some of these workarounds. The heap and list packages are some of my least favorite packages in the language, largely due to their use of interface{}.

Another frustration I have with the argument against generics is the anecdotal evidence—”I’ve never experienced a need for generics, so anyone who has must be wrong.” It’s a weird rationalization. It’s like a C programmer arguing against garbage collection to build a web app because free() works fine. Someone pointed out to me what’s actually going on is the Blub paradox, which Paul Graham coined.

Graham considers the hierarchy of programming languages with the example of “Blub,” a hypothetically average language “right in the middle of the abstractness continuum. It is not the most powerful language, but it is more powerful than Cobol or machine language.” It was used by Graham to illustrate a comparison, beyond Turing completeness, of programming language power, and more specifically to illustrate the difficulty of comparing a programming language one knows to one that one does not.

Graham considers a hypothetical Blub programmer. When the programmer looks down the “power continuum”, he considers the lower languages to be less powerful because they miss some feature that a Blub programmer is used to. But when he looks up, he fails to realise that he is looking up: he merely sees “weird languages” with unnecessary features and assumes they are equivalent in power, but with “other hairy stuff thrown in as well”. When Graham considers the point of view of a programmer using a language higher than Blub, he describes that programmer as looking down on Blub and noting its “missing” features from the point of view of the higher language.

Graham describes this as the “Blub paradox” and concludes that “By induction, the only programmers in a position to see all the differences in power between the various languages are those who understand the most powerful one.”

I sympathize with the Go team’s desire to keep the overall surface area of the language small and the complexity low, but I have a hard time reconciling this with the existing built-in generics and continued use of interface{} in the standard library. At the very least, I think Go would be better off with continued use of built-in generics for certain types instead of adding more APIs using interface{} like sync.Map, sync.Pool, and atomic.Value. Certainly, I think the debate is worth having though, but the hero-worship and genetic-fallacy type arguments do not further the discussion. My gut feeling is that Go will eventually have generics. It’s just a question of when and how.

Discover how you can achielve enterpriese agility with microservices and API management

Topics:
generics ,go ,integration

Published at DZone with permission of Tyler Treat, DZone MVB. See the original article here.

Opinions expressed by DZone contributors are their own.

{{ parent.title || parent.header.title}}

{{ parent.tldr }}

{{ parent.urlSource.name }}