mirror of
https://github.com/golang/go
synced 2024-11-24 22:37:56 -07:00
349 lines
13 KiB
HTML
349 lines
13 KiB
HTML
|
<!-- The Go Programming Language FAQ -->
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h2 id="Origins">Origins</h2>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h3 id="What_is_the_purpose_of_the_project">
|
||
|
What is the purpose of the project?</h3>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
No major systems language has emerged in over a decade, but over that time
|
||
|
the computing landscape has changed tremendously. There are several trends:
|
||
|
|
||
|
<ul>
|
||
|
<li>
|
||
|
Computers are enormously quicker but software development is not faster.
|
||
|
<li>
|
||
|
Dependency management is a big part of software development today but the
|
||
|
"header files" of languages in the C tradition are antithetical to clean
|
||
|
dependency analysis—and fast compilation.
|
||
|
<li>
|
||
|
There is a growing rebellion against cumbersome type systems like those of
|
||
|
Java and C++, pushing people towards dynamically typed languages such as
|
||
|
Python and Javascript.
|
||
|
<li>
|
||
|
Some fundamental concepts such as garbage collection and parallel computation
|
||
|
are not well supported by popular systems languages.
|
||
|
<li>
|
||
|
The emergence of multicore computers has generated worry and confusion.
|
||
|
</ul>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
We believe it's worth trying again with a new language, a concurrent,
|
||
|
garbage-collected language with fast compilation. Regarding the points above:
|
||
|
|
||
|
<ul>
|
||
|
<li>
|
||
|
It should be possible to compile a major binary in a few seconds on a
|
||
|
single processor.
|
||
|
<li>
|
||
|
Go provides a model for software construction that makes dependency
|
||
|
analysis easy and avoids much of the overhead of C-style include files and
|
||
|
libraries.
|
||
|
<li>
|
||
|
The type system is not hierarchical, so less time should be spent
|
||
|
rearranging the hierarchy. Also, although Go has static types the language
|
||
|
attempts to make types feel lighter weight than in typical OO languages.
|
||
|
<li>
|
||
|
Go is fully garbage-collected and provides fundamental support for
|
||
|
concurrent execution and communication.
|
||
|
<li>
|
||
|
By its design, Go proposes an approach for the construction of system
|
||
|
software on multicore machines.
|
||
|
</ul>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h3 id="What_is_the_origin_of_the_name">
|
||
|
What is the origin of the name?</h3>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
"Ogle" would be a good name for a Go debugger.
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h3 id="Why_is_the_compiler_called_6g">Why is the compiler called 6g?</h3>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
The <code>6g</code> (and <code>8g</code>) compiler is named in the
|
||
|
tradition of the Plan 9 C compilers, described in
|
||
|
<a href="http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/compiler.html ">
|
||
|
http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/compiler.html</a>
|
||
|
(see the table in section 2).
|
||
|
|
||
|
6 is the architecture letter for amd64 (or x86-64, if you prefer).
|
||
|
g stands for go.
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h3 id="Why_not_just_write_some_libraries_for_Cpp_to_do_communication">
|
||
|
Why not just write some libraries for C++ to do communication?</h3>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>We considered doing that, but too many of the problems—lack of
|
||
|
garbage collection, long dependency chains, nested include files,
|
||
|
lack of concurrency awareness—are caused by the C++ language itself.
|
||
|
We felt a viable solution required a more complete approach.
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h2 id="Usage">Usage</h2>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h3 id="Who_do_you_expect_to_use_the_language">
|
||
|
Who do you expect to use the language?</h3>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
Go is an experiment. We hope adventurous users will give it a try and see
|
||
|
if it provides a viable alternative to the status quo. Not every programmer
|
||
|
will like it but we hope enough will find satisfaction in the approach it
|
||
|
offers to justify further development.
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h3 id="Do_Go_programs_link_with_Cpp_programs">
|
||
|
Do Go programs link with C/C++ programs?</h3>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
There are two Go compilers, <code>6g</code> and <code>gccgo</code>.
|
||
|
<code>6g</code> uses a different calling convention and linker and can
|
||
|
therefore only be linked with C programs using the same convention.
|
||
|
There is such a C compiler but no C++ compiler. <code>Gccgo</code> is a
|
||
|
<code>gcc</code> front-end that can, with care, be linked with gcc-compiled
|
||
|
C or C++ programs. However, because Go is garbage-collected it will be
|
||
|
unwise to do so, at least naively.
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
Work is underway to provide a 'foreign function interface' to allow safe
|
||
|
interoperation of languages in a running program.
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h3 id="Does_Go_support_protocol_buffers">
|
||
|
Does Go support protocol buffers?</h3>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
Protocol buffers are supported. The next release of the
|
||
|
protocol compiler project will include Go code generators
|
||
|
and a Go library for them.
|
||
|
It is still being tweaked but works well.
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h2 id="Design">Design</h2>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h3 id="Why_doesn_t_Go_have_feature_X">Why doesn't Go have feature X?</h3>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
Every language contains novel features and omits someone's favorite
|
||
|
feature. Go was designed with an eye on felicity of programming, speed of
|
||
|
compilation, orthogonality of concepts, and the need to support features
|
||
|
such as concurrency and garbage collection. Your favorite feature may be
|
||
|
missing because it doesn't fit, because it affects compilation speed or
|
||
|
clarity of design, or because it would make the fundamental system model
|
||
|
too difficult.
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
Before you get too worried about Go not having feature <var>X</var>,
|
||
|
please investigate the features that Go does have. You might find that
|
||
|
they compensate in interesting ways for the lack of <var>X</var>.
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h3 id="Why_is_the_syntax_so_different_from_Cpp">
|
||
|
Why is the syntax so different from C++?</h3>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
This and other language design questions are answered in
|
||
|
the separate <a href="go_lang_faq.html">language FAQ</a>.
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h2 id="Object_Oriented_Programming">
|
||
|
Object-Oriented Programming</h2>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h3 id="Is_Go_an_object-oriented_language">
|
||
|
Is Go an object-oriented language?</h3>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
Yes and no. Although Go has types and methods and allows an
|
||
|
object-oriented style of programming, there is no type hierarchy.
|
||
|
The concept of "interface" in Go provides a different approach that
|
||
|
we believe is easy to use and in some ways more general. There are
|
||
|
also ways to embed types in other types to provide something
|
||
|
analogous—but not identical—to subclassing.
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
The lack of type hierarchy makes "objects" in Go feel much more
|
||
|
lightweight than in languages such as C++ and Java.
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h3 id="How_do_I_get_dynamic_dispatch_of_methods">
|
||
|
How do I get dynamic dispatch of methods?</h3>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
The only way to have dynamically dispatched methods is through an
|
||
|
interface. Methods on structs or other types are always resolved statically.
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h2 id="Concurrency">Concurency</h2>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h3 id="What_operations_are_atomic_What_about_mutexes">
|
||
|
What operations are atomic? What about mutexes?</h3>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
We haven't fully defined it all yet, but some details are available in the
|
||
|
<a href="go_mem.html">Go Memory Model specification</a>.
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
One point that has come up: at least for now, maps do not guarantee atomic
|
||
|
update from multiple threads of execution. This is not the place for a
|
||
|
full discussion but in essence it was felt that shared maps are usually
|
||
|
part of some larger synchronized object and forcing synchronization in the
|
||
|
map implementation would be too costly considering how rarely it would
|
||
|
actually help.
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
The <a href="/pkg/sync">sync</a>
|
||
|
package implements mutexes, but we hope Go programming style will
|
||
|
encourage people to try higher-level techniques. In particular, consider
|
||
|
structuring your program so that only one goroutine at a time is ever
|
||
|
responsible for a particular piece of data.
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
Do not communicate by sharing memory. Instead, share memory by communicating.
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h2 id="Writing_Code">Writing Code</h2>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h3 id="How_are_libraries_documented">
|
||
|
How are libraries documented?</h3>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
There is a program, <code>godoc</code>, written in Go, that extracts
|
||
|
package documentation from the source code. It can be used on the
|
||
|
command line or on the web. An instance is running at
|
||
|
<a href="http://go/go">http://go/go</a>.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h3 id="Is_there_a_Go_programming_style_guide">
|
||
|
Is there a Go programming style guide?</h3>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
Eventually, there will be a small number of rules that guide things
|
||
|
like naming, layout, and file organization. We are thinking of
|
||
|
enforcing layout rules using a pretty-printing program that
|
||
|
implements the rules, rather than writing a compendium of do's and
|
||
|
don'ts that allows interpretation.
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h3 id="How_do_I_submit_patches_to_the_Go_libraries">
|
||
|
How do I submit patches to the Go libraries?</h3>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<ol>
|
||
|
<li>If it's a significant change, discuss on the mailing list before embarking.
|
||
|
|
||
|
<li>Check out the Go source code files. The library sources are in <code>go/src/pkg</code>.
|
||
|
|
||
|
<li>Make changes; add tests as appropriate. Try to follow existing style,
|
||
|
including tabs for indentation, and no trailing whitespace. In
|
||
|
documentation comments for public declarations, use full sentences
|
||
|
and begin with the name of the thing being described, because godoc
|
||
|
(or other tools) may someday display these comments out of context.
|
||
|
|
||
|
<li>Write the <code>Makefile</code> by following existing examples.
|
||
|
|
||
|
<li>Run <code>make</code> and <code>make test</code> in the affected
|
||
|
directories.
|
||
|
|
||
|
<li>If you have added a new dependency, you may need to <code>cd go/src/lib;
|
||
|
./deps.bash</code> to update the Make.deps file included in the Makefile.
|
||
|
For a new component, update the <code>Makefile</code> and then run
|
||
|
<code>deps.bash</code>.
|
||
|
<li><code>cd go/src; ./all.bash</code>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<li>Once <code>all.bash</code> succeeds (output like
|
||
|
"N known bugs; 0 unexpected bugs" is OK),
|
||
|
<a href="/doc/contribute.html">submit a CL</a>.
|
||
|
</ol>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h3 id="How_do_I_create_a_multifile_package">
|
||
|
How do I create a multifile package?</h3>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
Put all the source files for the package in a directory by themselves.
|
||
|
Source files can refer to items from different files at will; there is
|
||
|
no header file or need for forward declarations.
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
Other than being split into multiple files, the package will compile and test
|
||
|
just like a single-file package.
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h3 id="How_do_I_write_a_unit_test">
|
||
|
How do I write a unit test?</h3>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
Create a new file ending in <code>_test.go</code> in the same directory
|
||
|
as your package sources. Inside that file, <code>import "testing"</code>
|
||
|
and write functions of the form
|
||
|
|
||
|
<pre>
|
||
|
func TestFoo(t *testing.T) {
|
||
|
...
|
||
|
}
|
||
|
</pre>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
Run <code>gotest</code> in that directory.
|
||
|
That script finds the <code>Test</code> functions,
|
||
|
builds a test binary, and runs it.
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h3 id="Where_is_assert">
|
||
|
Where is assert?</h3>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
Go doesn't provide assertions. They are undeniably convenient, but our
|
||
|
experience has been that programmers use them as a crutch to avoid thinking
|
||
|
about proper error handling and reporting. Proper error handling means that
|
||
|
servers continue operation after non-fatal errors instead of crashing.
|
||
|
Proper error reporting means that errors are direct and to the point,
|
||
|
saving the programmer from interpreting a large crash trace. Precise
|
||
|
errors are particularly important when the programmer seeing the errors is
|
||
|
not familiar with the code.
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
The same arguments apply to the use of <code>assert()</code> in test programs. Proper
|
||
|
error handling means letting other tests run after one has failed, so
|
||
|
that the person debugging the failure gets a complete picture of what is
|
||
|
wrong. It is more useful for a test to report that
|
||
|
<code>isPrime</code> gives the wrong answer for 2, 3, 5, and 7 (or for
|
||
|
2, 4, 8, and 16) than to report that <code>isPrime</code> gives the wrong
|
||
|
answer for 2 and therefore no more tests were run. The programmer who
|
||
|
triggers the test failure may be someone editing the code months later
|
||
|
or even someone editing a different package on which the code depends.
|
||
|
Time invested writing a good error message now pays off later when the
|
||
|
test breaks.
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
In testing, if the amount of extra code required to write
|
||
|
good errors seems repetitive and overwhelming, it might work better as a
|
||
|
table-driven test instead. Unlike Java (jUnit's home language),
|
||
|
Go has excellent support for data structure literals.
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
We understand that this is a point of contention. There are many things in
|
||
|
the Go language and libraries that differ from modern practices, simply
|
||
|
because we feel it's worth trying to do better.
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h2 id="Implementation">Implementation</h2>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h3 id="What_compiler_technology_is_used_to_build_the_compilers">
|
||
|
What compiler technology is used to build the compilers?</h3>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
Gccgo has a C++ front-end with a recursive descent parser coupled to the
|
||
|
standard gcc back end. 6g is written in C using yacc/bison for the parser.
|
||
|
Although it's a new program, it fits in the Plan 9 C compiler suite
|
||
|
(<a href="http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/compiler.html">http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/compiler.html</a>)
|
||
|
and uses a variant of the Plan 9 loader to generate ELF binaries.
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
We considered writing 6g, the original Go compiler, in Go itself but
|
||
|
elected not to do so because of the difficulties of bootstrapping and
|
||
|
especially of open source distribution - you'd need a Go compiler to
|
||
|
set up a Go environment. Gccgo, which came later, makes it possible to
|
||
|
consider rewriting 6g in Go, which might well happen. (Go would be a
|
||
|
fine language in which to implement a compiler; a native lexer and
|
||
|
parser are already available in pkg/go.)
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
We also considered using LLVM for 6g but we felt it was too large and
|
||
|
slow to meet our performance goals.
|
||
|
|
||
|
<h3 id="How_is_the_runtime_implemented">
|
||
|
How is the runtime implemented?</h3>
|
||
|
|
||
|
<p>
|
||
|
Again due to bootstrapping issues, the runtime is mostly in C (with a
|
||
|
tiny bit of assembler) although Go is capable of implementing most of
|
||
|
it now. Gccgo's runtime uses glibc; 6g uses a custom library,
|
||
|
compiled with 6c (the Plan 9 C compiler) to keep the footprint under
|
||
|
control. The version of 6c used supports segmented stacks for
|
||
|
goroutines; work is underway to provide the same stack management in
|
||
|
gccgo.
|