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

The vgo proposal is accepted. Now what?

research.swtch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 138 posts

Re: The vgo proposal is accepted. Now what?

#31

Post by jchw »

eberkund wrote: post #20

I wish they had just copied Rust/Cargo. I remember reading a comment on GitHub somewhere from one of the Go maintainers who responded to someone expressing a similar sentiment and his reply was basically that Go is somehow different than every other language and they need to explore and find a unique custom solution for their particular use case. Has it ever been addressed anywhere why the tried and true "list of pac…

I think Cargo-like is the direction things are headed even with vgo. In a way, though, I don't think the answer is that Go is "special," just that they wanted to explore the problem space of package management, dependencies, etc. in more detail before locking things down. It may have ended in a slightly weakened ecosystem temporarily, but I hope it helps to ensure that the semantics and behavior of Go's package management is level headed and simple. Hopefully, by Go 2, a lot of the common concerns with the Go programming language will be answered...

Re: The vgo proposal is accepted. Now what?

#32

Post by throwaway243425 »

jrs95 wrote: post #6

> Now what? I keep using dep for as long as it's reasonable for me to do so, because I don't like MVS and I don't like how MVS has been basically forced upon us.

Soon many packages will start having the module system that comes with vgo and just like aliases, community means nothing to Go.

Re: The vgo proposal is accepted. Now what?

#33

Post by throwaway243425 »

To an outsider this may sound like there is some sort of process that resulted in this solution, there actually isn't any.

The committee is nothing more than a simple bureaucracy to the point that it is almost a joke how Russ makes a proposal, community is against it, then it gets accepted by the Committee.

It is all just a funny joke.

Re: The vgo proposal is accepted. Now what?

#34

Post by aviau »

eberkund wrote: post #20

I wish they had just copied Rust/Cargo. I remember reading a comment on GitHub somewhere from one of the Go maintainers who responded to someone expressing a similar sentiment and his reply was basically that Go is somehow different than every other language and they need to explore and find a unique custom solution for their particular use case. Has it ever been addressed anywhere why the tried and true "list of pac…

Yes, it has!

Russ Cox talks about this, amongst other things, in this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8nrpe0XWRg

I am sure there are written versions of this somewhere...

Re: The vgo proposal is accepted. Now what?

#36

Post by lobster_johnson »

jchw wrote: post #31
eberkund wrote: post #20

I wish they had just copied Rust/Cargo. I remember reading a comment on GitHub somewhere from one of the Go maintainers who responded to someone expressing a similar sentiment and his reply was basically that Go is somehow different than every other language and they need to explore and find a unique custom solution for their particular use case. Has it ever been addressed anywhere why the tried and true "list of pac…

I think Cargo-like is the direction things are headed even with vgo. In a way, though, I don't think the answer is that Go is "special," just that they wanted to explore the problem space of package management, dependencies, etc. in more detail before locking things down. It may have ended in a slightly weakened ecosystem temporarily, but I hope it helps to ensure that the semantics and behavior of Go's package manag…

The vgo proposal explicitly rejects the "Cargo way" [1]. There's no lock file, and the MVS algorithm requires, as far as I recall, that the go.mod file is modified whenever the developer wants to update to a new version.

[1] https://research.swtch.com/vgo-repro

Re: The vgo proposal is accepted. Now what?

#37

Post by lobster_johnson »

eberkund wrote: post #20

I wish they had just copied Rust/Cargo. I remember reading a comment on GitHub somewhere from one of the Go maintainers who responded to someone expressing a similar sentiment and his reply was basically that Go is somehow different than every other language and they need to explore and find a unique custom solution for their particular use case. Has it ever been addressed anywhere why the tried and true "list of pac…

Cox discusses Cargo here, and why he doesn't like it: https://research.swtch.com/vgo-repro

Re: The vgo proposal is accepted. Now what?

#39

Post by lobster_johnson »

anonfunction wrote: post #15

I really do not like the “semver-like” versioning string requirement. My packages are already tagged with valid semver releases and now I need to change them by adding a “v” prefix. If you don’t know what I’m talking about vgo requires the release to be tagged like “v1.0.3” which is not standard semver.

Every Go project I've used uses git tags prefixed with "v", e.g. v1.0.3.

https://github.com/gogo/protobuf

https://github.com/olivere/elastic

https://github.com/golang/protobuf

https://github.com/sanity-io/litter

Post reply on HN