Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Go has added Valgrind support

go-review.googlesource.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 157 posts

Re: Go has added Valgrind support

#101

Post by Steeeve »

pjmlp wrote: post #48
giancarlostoro wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am still curious, had they not gone this route, and avoided the other two routes mentioned, what could they have done to make this process as simple as the rest of Go tends to be, and nearly as performant? I guess this is an ongoing question to be solved at a future date.

It would be another scenario to use as ammunition for "see you can't implement a language toolchain without using C" , usually voiced by folks without background in compiler design, and understanding that most of the time that is a decision that spurs out of convenience and nothing else. Assembly isn't that hard, those of us that grown around 8 bit home computers were writing Z80 and 6502 Assembly aged 10 - 12 years…

> Assembly isn't that hard, those of us that grown around 8 bit home computers were writing Z80 and 6502 Assembly aged 10 - 12 years old, while having fun cracking games and setting the roots of Demoscene.

Finally. I found my people.

Re: Go has added Valgrind support

#102

Post by spookie »

pjmlp wrote: post #48
giancarlostoro wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am still curious, had they not gone this route, and avoided the other two routes mentioned, what could they have done to make this process as simple as the rest of Go tends to be, and nearly as performant? I guess this is an ongoing question to be solved at a future date.

It would be another scenario to use as ammunition for "see you can't implement a language toolchain without using C" , usually voiced by folks without background in compiler design, and understanding that most of the time that is a decision that spurs out of convenience and nothing else. Assembly isn't that hard, those of us that grown around 8 bit home computers were writing Z80 and 6502 Assembly aged 10 - 12 years…

Isn't Valgrind written in C?

Re: Go has added Valgrind support

#104

Post by bear8642 »

xmprt wrote: post #94
thechao wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh. There was a comment to your comment saying that kids learning assembly was easy and — I guess? — implying that adults-learning-assembly is hard. I teach adults assembly on an irregular basis. Adults-learning-assembly is hard because adults are rational animals who (correctly) assume I'm an idiot for insisting on assembly. Once I explain the long-term benefits for our exceedingly specific use case, they pick up as…

Assembly is simple because each instruction is very simple. Also, assembly is complex because each instruction is very simple.

Remember, simple is not the same easy

Re: Go has added Valgrind support

#105

Post by tasn »

9rx wrote: post #92
tasn wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For sure, that's why I said it's possibly due to the ecosystem. We link against two C libraries other than libc: OpenSSL and librdkafka. Though they are both abstracted away with solid Rust bindings so for us, so as a consumer of these libs it hasn't been a problem (I guess it may be a problem for the people developing them). I guess maybe the failure is not the addition of it (as it's useful for people writing the b…

> but rather how happy everyone on the thread is (which means it's more useful than it should be due to a failure with the ecosystem). More likely Go users are just happy in general. The Rust users always come across as being incredibly grumpy for some reason, which may be why that happiness — or what would be considered normalcy in any other venue — seems to stand out so much in comparison. > We link against [...] O…

Rust has rustls, we need to use OpenSSL for a very specific set of reasons unfortunately, but rustls is great and most people can just use that.

Also, I had no idea it was added because of constant time crypto that was shared after I wrote my top level comment.

Re: Go has added Valgrind support

#106

Post by tasn »

JyB wrote: post #83
tasn wrote: post #74

This feels more like a failure than a win. Don't get me wrong, I love Valgrind, and have been using it extensively in my past life as a C developer. Though the fact that Go needs Valgrind feels like a failure of the language or the ecosystem. I've been doing Rust for ~6 years now, and haven't had to reach for Valgrind even once (I think a team member may have use it once). I realize that's probably because of cgo, an…

I never understand why there's always one of the top comment on every Go post being derogatory and mentioning Rust. It never fails. It starts to feel like a weird mix of defensiveness and superiority complex.

If I had to guess: because Rust engineers are like every other engineer that reads HN. They read stories, sometimes comment, and share from their own experience. Rust and Go were created roughly at the same time and are more directly comparable than e.g. Go and Ruby, so you don't see Ruby people writing about not having to use Valgrind. This means you'll see more comments from Rust devs than others in Go threads.

At least that's why I wrote that original comment.

Re: Go has added Valgrind support

#107

Post by [deleted] »

tasn wrote: post #105
9rx wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but rather how happy everyone on the thread is (which means it's more useful than it should be due to a failure with the ecosystem). More likely Go users are just happy in general. The Rust users always come across as being incredibly grumpy for some reason, which may be why that happiness — or what would be considered normalcy in any other venue — seems to stand out so much in comparison. > We link against [...] O…

Rust has rustls, we need to use OpenSSL for a very specific set of reasons unfortunately, but rustls is great and most people can just use that. Also, I had no idea it was added because of constant time crypto that was shared after I wrote my top level comment.

[deleted]

Re: Go has added Valgrind support

#108

Post by chrsig »

bracewel wrote: post #71

Author of the linked CL here: we added this mostly so that we could abuse the memory initialization tracking to test the constant-time-ness of crypto code (similar to what BoringSSL does, proposed by agl around fifteen years ago: https://www.imperialviolet.org/2010/04/01/ctgrind.html ), which is an annoyingly hard property to test. We're hoping that there are also a bunch of other interesting side-effects of enabling…

w.r.t. your edit: Is there anything the community at large can do to aid your efforts?

Re: Go has added Valgrind support

#109

Post by 9rx »

tasn wrote: post #106
JyB wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never understand why there's always one of the top comment on every Go post being derogatory and mentioning Rust. It never fails. It starts to feel like a weird mix of defensiveness and superiority complex.

If I had to guess: because Rust engineers are like every other engineer that reads HN. They read stories, sometimes comment, and share from their own experience. Rust and Go were created roughly at the same time and are more directly comparable than e.g. Go and Ruby, so you don't see Ruby people writing about not having to use Valgrind. This means you'll see more comments from Rust devs than others in Go threads. At…

> and are more directly comparable than e.g. Go and Ruby

Why do you say that? The original Go announcement made it abundantly clear that it was intended to be like a dynamically-typed language, but faster. It is probably more like Python than Ruby, as it clearly took a lot of ideas from Python, but most seem to consider those languages to be in the same hemisphere anyway.

Beyond maybe producing complied binaries, which is really just an implementation detail, not a hard feature of the language, what is really comparable with Rust?

Post reply on HN