Merge branch 'release/20190916'

5 years ago · 8ad20d81f2
2 changed files with 541 additions and 0 deletions
--- a/content/reviews/books/chthon.md
+++ b/content/reviews/books/chthon.md
@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
 +++
 title = "Chthon - Piers Anthony"
 date = 2019-09-13
 [taxonomies]
 tags = ["books", "reviews", "en-au", "piers anthony", "scifi"]
 +++
 [Goodreads Summary](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23352267-chthon):
 Chthon was Piers Anthony’s first published novel in 1967, written over the
 course of seven years. He started it when he was in the US Army, so it has a
 long prison sequence that is reminiscent of that experience, being dark and
 grim. It features Aton Five, a space man who commits the crime of falling in
 love with the dangerous, alluring Minionette and is therefore condemned to
 death in the subterranean prison of Chthon. It uses flashbacks to show how he
 came to know the Minionette, and flash-forwards to show how he dealt with her
 after his escape from prison. The author regards this as perhaps the most
 intricately structured novel the science fantasy genre has seen. It was a
 contender for awards, but not a winner.
 <!-- more -->
 {{ stars(stars=2) }}
 A lot it is said about this book about its narrative structure, starting in
 the "present" and then doing flashbacks explaining some point (sometimes) and
 then showing the future in "flash forwards". The thing is, "flash forwards"
 don't feel like "flash forwards"; the simply appear as if the future is the
 present and the present became a flashback.
 Also, the flashbacks sometimes are not explanative and a bit too long. The
 very first one doesn't explain anything about the current state of the story,
 and it is so long you have to wonder if the story actually moved back or it is
 talking about something else.
 There is also some weird jumps in the story that made me feel like I skipped a
 whole page for some unknown reason, and I had to track back, see that I didn't
 skip anything and the story simply did a (small) jump in the plot.
 The characters are really bland. One of the topics, the fact that a race
 actually feels hate as love (and no, that's not a spoiler, 'cause you don't
 know who I'm talking about), is actually really bad explained and explored --
 and the weird fact that, as the author puts in the post words in the end, that
 was the origin of the book.
--- a/content/thoughts/why-rust-and-not-go.md
+++ b/content/thoughts/why-rust-and-not-go.md
@ -0,0 +1,497 @@
 +++
 title = "Why Rust and not Go"
 date = 2019-09-16
 [taxonomies]
 tags = ["go", "rust", "programming languages", "nitpick"]
 +++
 {% note() %}
 This is a rebuttal to [Why Go and not
 Rust?](https://kristoff.it/blog/why-go-and-not-rust/).
 {% end %}
 # HUGE DISCLAIMER
 Before jumping into the discussion, let me put this first: I do write code in
 Rust (not professionally), I've not written something in Go yet but I keep
 reading about the language and its ecosystem. I also follow the Rust as a
 language and its ecosystem.
 Second, another thing you must know about me: I've been a developer
 professionally for about 30 years (its no hyperbole here: I did start
 professionally writing code when I was 12 and didn't leave the field yet).
 I've written code that run in about 15 different languages, so I have strong
 opinions about coding after suffering with those languages.
 Third, I do believe languages do not exist in a vacuum: Besides the language,
 you have libraries and frameworks; besides the languages and the frameworks,
 there is dependency control; besides dependency control, there is a community.
 Fourth, if that's not really clear so far, all this is a matter of opinion --
 even the original post is, although it doesn't say so.
 Fifth, yes, I did take things out of order, mostly 'cause I thought some
 points are scattered around the original text that are complementary.
 That being said...
 ## The Nitpicking
 (Those are points that just brushed me in the wrong way, but they are not
 major points and you can really skip this if you don't want to read a bunch of
 complains.)
 > Go is fast, but Rust is faster.
 C is even faster. So what?
 > Go has an efficient garbage collector, but Rust has static memory management.
 And so does C and C++. So what?
 > Go has interfaces, but Rust has traits and other zero-cost abstractions
 Well, Go doesn't have interfaces _per-se_. Their interface is akin to Python
 "if it has an `open()`, `read()` and `fseek()`, then it's a File-like object",
 as far as I know. Python even changed that from the "it looks like a
 file-like" to using the double-dunder functions to fit the interface ("if it
 has a `__len__()` method, it is an object with a size").
 > Go has great support for HTTP and related protocols and it doesn't take long
 > to write a satisfactory web service.
 More satisfactory than [Flask](https://palletsprojects.com/p/flask/), in which
 you can create a service (a very dumb one, in that) with only 5 lines of code?
 Does it? Or is it a _personal opinion_?
 Honestly, I haven't seen -- even with Rust -- something as dead simple as
 Flask, so there we have it. If you need performance, one could use
 [Sanic](https://github.com/huge-success/sanic), which is a uvloop powered
 server with a syntax that is pretty close to Flask.
 So, when you say "great support" and "satisfactory" is that a _fact_ or an
 _opinion_?
 Obviously it is an opinion, as much as me saying Flask/Sanic can beat anything
 Go has, and neither of those are valid for anything. Beauty is in the eye of
 the beholder.
 (But if I'm nitpicking, I can throw whatever language I want here.)
 >  The creators of Go like to call it a “boring” language.
 Weirdly enough, I heard the same thing about Rust. So which one is the
 "boriest" of them all?
 This kind of call is akin to the PyPy devs saying that "PyPy is 300% faster
 than CPython -- for tests written specifically to prove that PyPy is 300% faster
 than CPython". The same thing can be said here: Go/Rust devs call their
 language boring 'cause they want to prove their language is boring. Neither is
 true -- and, weirdly enough, _both_ are true.
 One could even claim that Python is more boring that Go.
 > do more with less” has proven to be very successful.
 Wait, are you _really_ quoting Dennis Ritchie, in which he was defending C? C
 has less than Go or Rust, so maybe we should jump back to C? Is that what you
 mean?
 > In truth, none of these things alone is particularly impressive, but they do
 > describe the mindset that Go wants to impose. Many don’t like it but, in my
 > opinion, it’s a killer feature for some types of development, like
 > enterprise software.
 If we point that Rust does exactly what you're saying and _better_ ("enforce"
 vs "you need to run something, otherwise nothing changes", which I _will_
 point right now), then Rust kills Go in enterprise software, right?
 > Enterprise software always has a big scope.
 Yes, and that's why we break this scope -- and some domains and everything
 else -- into smaller parts that connect to each other. Those are called
 "microservices" and one thing is that you can write them in whatever, but the
 scope is always a small one (for different scales of "small") but it won't
 be something ginourmous like a monolith, in which all the scopes exist in the
 same place.
 (I'll make this point again later, but it is weird how the author says one can
 spin a Go app really fast, but then comes with the sort of points like this
 that make sense only for monoliths, and I'm not sure which is the real point
 being pointed in these cases.)
 > To unravel complex domains you need a well-structured process.
 (And then he jumps into discussing about domains and expects and stakeholders)
 You know what you're talking about? A DSL. You want a DSL to is close to the
 experts about their domain, you want a DSL so stakeholders can understand
 what's going on above the code.
 You want Racket. I've seen things close to this in Rust using macros (which is
 witchcraft to me) but I'll refrain from saying "Rust has it, and better".
 ## The Freaking Cargo Cult
 > Go was created at Google to solve Google problems
 This is something that we, developers, who love and hate _any_ language need
 to discuss. And it comes in this other point:
 > As I already mentioned, Go was created to solve Google problems, and Google
 > problems are definitely enterprise-scale problems.
 You know who has Google problems? GOOGLE! You know who else has Google
 problems? NO ONE!
 No one is a huge search engine that lives capturing peoples data to provide
 relevant ads (and, sometimes, search results, and shopping lists and
 whatever).
 It's the same bullshit people claiming "Netflix has 600+ microservices using
 Spring, so we should use Spring for our microservices", 'cause you won't have
 600+ microservices, and most probably none of them are related to providing
 video streaming.
 It's the same bullshit people claiming "Amazon deploys a microservice every 11
 seconds, so we must use microservices too!" 'cause, again, you're not a huge
 cloud provider with two or three different versions of the same solution.
 This "Cargo Cult": The idea that if we do the same thing someone else did and
 it worked, it will work for us too. Enterprises everywhere run Java, for huge
 scales -- AWS is the first that comes to mind -- but you're not claiming Java
 can solve "enterprise-scale" problems, are you? The point that you're trying
 to make here is "worked for Google, will work for you", which is plain wrong.
 And it doesn't even involve Go or Rust. You're trying to make a point by
 saying "They use" and that's not a point. _At all_.
 # The Plain Wrong
 > Go is also strict about things that other languages are usually more lax about.
 Guess you never saw the borrow checker. Or the fact that Rust doesn't allow
 passing an u32 (unsigned int of 32 bits) as a parameter that requires an u64,
 even if the later is larger than the former. There is no implicit conversion
 in Rust and a Rust dev must explicit convert from one type to the other.
 That's very strict in my opinion, even if you believe this is just an
 annoyance.
 You can't have strictness with flexibility. The are opposite points: Either
 the language is flexible (allowing you to use an u32 in a u64 parameter and
 doing the conversion to you) or it's very strict (like Rust does).
 Also, since you're talking about "strictness", let me ask you this: Have the
 Go core devs fixed this?
 ```
 result, err := some_function()
 return result
 ```
 What is there to fix? No, it's not the "it should complain that err is never
 used" (I could replace `err` with `_` and the error would still be there). It
 is **the freaking error treatment**! You can't call a language strict if, in
 2019, it let this kind of stuff slip by. We learnt, in those last years, that
 the "not-happy" path happens more often than the happy path. And ignoring such
 errors is the major cause of headaches we get, and that's why we have those
 stupid "restart job at midnight" cronjobs or watchdogs that keep checking if
 the process is running and start it again if it crashes. 
 I can also bring the borrow checker back into this: You see, we don't talk
 about processor speed anymore these days, we talk about cores. The future (and
 the present) are multi-thread. I won't deny that launching a concurrent,
 multi-threaded service in Go is a lot simpler than Rust, but Go doesn't have
 any validation about the memory usage; it won't prevent you from doing
 something like sending a structure over a channel and changing that structure
 _in the same thread_. So, while Go makes it easier, Rust makes sure you're not
 shooting yourself in the foot in the long run -- which would require the
 cronjobs or watchdogs.
 > Go doesn’t want unused variables or imports
 Neither does Rust -- it throws a large, explicative warning right in the
 middle of your screen -- , so what's the point of this here?
 > files belonging to different packages in the same directory
 Hey, do you know that, in Rust, directories _are_ packages, and so you _can't_
 put files of different packages in the different directories? In this case,
 Rust seem more strict than Go, doesn't it?
 > Go also doesn’t want any “fingerprints” in the code, so it enforces a
 > single, universal style via `go fmt`.
 It doesn't _enforce_ if you have to run this. Rust also have a `rustfmt`, if
 that's your point but, besides that, the Rust compiler will complain about
 things that are not following the coding style. Try to name a variable in
 camelCase and see what the rust compiler will say.
 Besides `rustfmt`, Python has Black (which I hate, but still); before Black,
 Python have flake8 and pylint, both which would "enforce" the Python style. So
 this is, again, a moot point.
 > The toolchain is very often lousy and/or dated.
 You mean, projects don't have [rustup](https://rustup.rs/), the way Rust has?
 Crazy!
 Or even the backwards compatibility, like when Rust changed from the 2015
 edition to 2018, but you could select which edition (compiler version, AST,
 and so on) your project would use?
 > The Go compiler is fast.
 Ah crap, not that shit again.
 The whole point is "compiler is fast, tests run faster". Well, what if I said
 the compiler would catch bugs _before_ the tests? That would be even faster,
 'cause then you can focus your tests on system behaviour, which is way more
 important than function behaviour or class/structure/module behaviour.
 We are, once again, discussing [Fast Test, Slow
 Test](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAxiiRPHS9k), aren't we? Let me write a
 test for every single function, every single class and oh, look how fast they
 run, 'cause the compiler is fast! Then we put the "integration tests" in the
 CI and everybody is happy.
 Except you wrote tests twice when the only tests that matter are the ones that
 check the system behaviours.
 > With Go, it’s easier as a junior developer to be more productive
 [Citation needed]. I know this is pretty close a nitpick and I can understand
 where this is going, but my guess is that, in the long run, when juniors
 understand why certain snippets don't compile, they can be more productive
 'cause errors in their code will be caught way earlier in compilation (see
 point below about types and above about compiler strictness).
 Also, feel free to call [Citation needed] about my point here too, 'cause we
 both know we are both pulling data out of our asses.
 # The Somewhat Right
 > There are a lot of junior developers
 Yes, there are. Also, they are, sadly, not getting that many jobs, 'cause as
 this point, nobody is hiring juniors. We can go back to the point of "juniors
 being more productive" and say "Hey, junior dev, if you learn programming
 language X, you'd get a job, 'cause it's really an easy language" and I'd
 throw Python here and break your engine.
 Sure, there _may_ be that Go is simpler than Rust (and I'll outright say that
 Python _is_ easier than Rust), but we can't say Go is easier than Rust.
 If I can go into anecdote mode, I could say that I personally find Go code
 harder to understand than Rust, and no, it's not because I've wrote some Rust
 code an no code in Go; Go syntax simply does look weird to me, and one can say
 that is because the order of the languages I learnt. So, for me, it's harder
 to learn Go due its syntax than it is to learn Rust.
 > This pushes further down technological concerns such as efficiency, and even
 > correctness. Don’t get me wrong, the business does care about correctness,
 > but they have a different definition for it. When you’re thinking about
 > algorithmic correctness, they are thinking about a reconciliation
 > back-office for the operations team they keep in a country where labor is
 > cheap.
 Wait, so it is technological but it is not technological? I know, this should
 be in the nitpick section, but there is another important point here.
 Thing is, business people do not care about reconciliation; they worry about
 deliveries and cheap labor _and that is_. Are they delivering? Are they cheap?
 Good, case closed. We don't care if there is a problem that will appear in 10
 months or if they connection is slow between services; it works right now and we
 saved money right now, so the math is solid.
 On the other hand, if we are talking about "technological efficiency", you've
 already said Rust is faster than Go, so it's more efficient (for the level of
 efficient I want to use to prove that Rust is better than Go -- and I'm being
 sarcastic here); if we are talking about "technological correctness", we can
 go down the rabbit hole of Rust types and that, although not close to Haskell
 types, it forces a good bunch of correctness in your processes. And nothing
 about Go types (and their correctness) is ever mentioned; wanna guess why?
 > Software projects quickly become huge and complex for all the wrong reasons.
 I have to agree with this. Yes, software grows beyond maintainability and
 domains change.
 On the other hand, we keep pushing microservices in those larger contexts,
 specially to avoid being stuck in certain domains, 'cause you can just
 rewrite services (yes, you can) or you break code into different services so
 they don't go being the maintainability barrier.
 (This point is also annoying the heck out of me, with the comparison of Go
 being easy to spin something and then calling monolith problems. Either it is
 a language consistent to huge deployments, like Java, or it is a language with
 prospects towards simpler things, like Python. There are drawbacks in both and
 one can't push towards the to points without breaking everything.)
 > Go is much easier to learn than Java or C#.
 Says who? I mean, I don't want to bring the "That's, like, your opinion, man"
 card again, but I guess one could find a lot more resources about Java or C#
 than Go.
 What about Rust? I give that the language is not that easy to pick, but every
 working group on the Rust community writes their own book, so one could bring
 those juniors devs into reading the books they will need to use and be done
 with that.
 > The Go community regards as anti-patterns many abstractions regularly
 > employed by Java / C#
 And I guess Java and C# regards Go abstraction as anti-patterns too, so what's
 the point? Any language that has different ways to express abstractions
 compared to other languages, and they will call the other language
 abstractions "anti-patterns".
 Rust will call some Java patterns anti-patterns too and I have to, once again,
 ask "So what?" Does this makes Rust better than Java if it does? Does it make
 better than Go if it calls the same Java abstractions "anti-patterns", but has
 better performance than Go and is more strict than Go?
 > Go is faster than Java
 [For a very small
 margin](https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/go.html).
 But I have to pull the ["moving
 goalpost"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts) card in the
 blog post here: "Go is simple so that all of this can hold true when
 confronting the average Go program with the average Java / C# program." So now
 we are comparing the "average" Go vs the "average" Java/C# (which,
 surprisingly, are nothing like the "average" Rust program). Except whatever is
 an "average" Go/Java/C# program is never defined, so we can keep pulling data
 from our asses and keep saying that the benchmark game isn't valid 'cause the
 examples are not "average".
 And whatever I can point as "average", you will point that is not "average",
 right? That's what a "moving goalpost" means.
 Oh, you mean, "on all the things, Go is faster". As in "it compiles faster",
 which we know means nothing, if it doesn't bring the strictness and
 correctness factors into it (let me write a very fast compiler in Bash that
 produces code that never runs, but it is _fast_!); as in "We can fix things
 faster", in which I can call that Rust is pretty close to Elm, in which "if it
 compiles, it will run without runtime exceptions", so in actuality, there are
 less bugs (personal observation, it actually does!).
 As "average" as in what, actually? As in "whatever point I want to make about
 Go being better than Java/C#", for absolutely no reason?
 # The Things We Don't Talk About
 There is one important piece that is never discussed: Ecosystem.
 And no, ecosystem is not simply the number of libraries and packages in the
 package manager; it is way beyond that: It's about its community and the way
 the management deals with it.
 And we have to talk about `go dep`.
 `go dep`, the Go dependency tool, is a replacement of the dependency tool
 created by the community, `godep`, after a whole year with said community
 asking for a decent dependency tool, specially compared to the `vendor`
 solution. So, without every inquiring the community, the Go core devs decided
 they know better, made a tool and gave a big "screw you" to the community.
 Not only that, but just recently the same tool decided to [call
 home](https://codeengineered.com/blog/2019/go-mod-proxy-psa/) by adding a
 proxy on the call of every package, _including your private ones_. Why? No
 real explanation. It simply does. It's not for CDN, 'cause it is just a proxy.
 It's not for CDN, 'cause other it would require coordination between the
 package repository and the CDN and none of this is included in this change.
 Simply, every single install of a package will be captured by Google. For. No.
 Good. Reason.
 Not only the situation of the core Go devs going against the wishes of the
 community, there was even some whisper about forking Go into a community
 version, so it could run with a core group that would actually _listen_ to the
 community.
 And Go is just one year older than Rust. And nobody is saying "Let's fork
 Rust" -- even if you count [without boats](https://twitter.com/withoutboats/)
 comments about a simpler version of Rust, in which he was talking about
 _another language_ that would borrow some stuff from Rust, the same way Rust
 borrowed some stuff from OCaml and other ML languages.
 [Cargo](https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/) is the Rust counterpart of `go dep`.
 Cargo was born in the Rust infancy and it is evolving along the Rust compiler.
 All discussions about it [are done in the
 open](https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/issues/) with the community input.
 Rust itself goes [through the same
 motions](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues) -- and that could be the
 reason async/await is almost a whole year in the cooking, with discussions
 about its syntax going through iterations over the issue list.
 # You Have To Have a Posture
 You, the reader, may now be wondering why I brought the `go dep` discussion
 into this. You may believe that discussions in the open (and taking longer
 than they needed) is a big turn off for you 'cause it makes things move
 slower.
 But let me ask you this: Which one of those models follow an open source
 development model? Let's take Mike Hoye, from Mozilla, definition of open
 source: "I think that openness as a practice – not just code you can fork but
 the transparency and accessibility of the development process." 
 With that, take a step back and re-read the last point again. Which one of
 those are really an open project? Is the Go development transparent and
 accessible?
 # In Closing
 I have to call the original post completely baloney, mostly 'cause I want this
 post to end in a lighter mood. I mean, there is a huge confusion of saying "Go
 is better than Java/C#" while what we are talking about is "Go vs Rust". The
 whole "Let me take a huge turn here, saying Go is better than Java/C# only to,
 in the end, say that Go is for Java and Rust is for C++, but I'll never
 compare Java vs C++ to actually make a point about Go vs Rust with their
 comparative other languages".
 And then, when we pick the points in which the author goes straight for the
 "Go vs Rust" discussion, all the points are wrong or seemed more about opinion
 than actual facts.
 So what is actually the point? That Go is better than Java and Rust is better
 than C++ and, thus, Go is better than Rust? 'Cause I can totally buy in the
 first part, but the second is bullshit.
 I won't say Go is a bad language, but Go is in no way a better language than
 Rust, specially if we consider the future, in which more cores will be
 available (considering the current trends) and more threaded applications will
 be more common. I'll say that Rust design decisions give an edge over Go, so
 Go should seriously go back to the basics of error control and memory
 protection if it wants to be a language for the future. But being bad managed
 probably means it would never happen.
 And those points make Go a bad option for anyone writing something serious. 
 But what do I meant by "badly managed"? Well, as you can see, the core devs
 don't seem to listen the community on the big issues (one could bring the
 discussion about a `Try` operator, which would be a minor change, compared to
 the dependency control, which the community said no and the core devs agreed
 but, again, that's a minor thing compared to dependency control tool). The `go
 dep` was a complete "ignore whatever the community built, 'cause we know
 better" and the Google proxy was simple a PSA, not a "let's ask the community
 what they think about it before doing it so" are two signs that they don't
 care about what the community wants and that means they can pivot the language
 in a way that the community _doesn't_ want and there would be nothing one
 could do.
 "It's just one tool, not the whole thing!", you're screaming at me. But it is
 a tool the community seriously wanted (the Go Evangelist inside Microsoft came
 to her twitter account to loudly say "Go core, fix this or I will stop
 promoting go inside Microsoft, 'cause it's bad right now") and they were first
 ignored and then pushed aside.
 That's not how open source projects should move about.
 You may not care about this "open source" thingy, and that's ok. You may
 believe that the core team knows better how Go should move forward than the
 people actually writing code in Go, and that's ok. But if you're an open
 source proponent, evangelist or admirer, there is absolutely no reason to
 defend Go on _any_ accounts.