Fast cryptographically safe GUID generator for Go • Hacker News Board

Re: Fast cryptographically safe GUID generator for Go

#41

Post by shakna » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 10:01 AM UTC

sdrapkin wrote: post #24

saclark11 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "UUID" was already taken by Google. This shouldn't really matter as your import paths are obviously different. `github.com/google/uuid` and `github.com/sdrapkin/guid` can happily coexist. Any file/codebase importing both (which would ideally be avoided in the first place) can alias them. > IMHO "Guid" is just as well known I think the point the commenter was trying to make is that these do not adhere to the UUID sp…

> This shouldn't really matter as your import paths are obviously different. I'm aware of that, of course. Guid is intentionally named differently from "uuid" (both as a package and as a type) to ensure there is no confusion between them in code. It is not the goal of Guid to mimic/inherit all uuid APIs. Guid is its own package, with a different API surface and roadmap (ie. I'll borrow what makes sense and do things…

The spec uses both UUID and GUID. You can expect the same thing for both.

> This specification defines UUIDs (Universally Unique IDentifiers) -- also known as GUIDs (Globally Unique IDentifiers) -- and a Uniform Resource Name namespace for UUIDs.

Re: Fast cryptographically safe GUID generator for Go

#42

Post by sdrapkin » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 12:05 PM UTC

shakna wrote: post #40

sdrapkin wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Guid/uuid is defined as a 16-byte structure. Are you questioning the “byte” part, or the “random” part?

No, its defined to a series of specifications. [0] Ones that define an underlying structure, in bits. You have a 16byte random string. Thats great. But it is not a UUID. [0] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9562.html > The UUID format is 16 octets (128 bits) in size; the variant bits in conjunction with the version bits described in the next sections determine finer structure.

No, Guid/uuids are defined as 128-bit labels used to uniquely identify objects in computer systems. This 128-bit/16-byte definition predates any RFCs that one may or may not choose to implement. I'm obviously aware of RFC 9562, and nowhere in the Guid library do I claim implementation of it. RFC 9562 is a choice, and one that should not be made blindly, or for you. It all starts with 16 random bytes. Google's uuid starts that way, and virtually every other Guid/uuid implementation. Then, on top of that building block, one may tweak additional non-random bits if the usecase truly requires it. If it does - you can do it quickly and cheaply on top of 16 random bytes. If the usecase does not require it (99% of cases), you're better off with the foundational 16 random bytes. The perspective of "your 16 random bytes do not implement RFC 9562 - BAD, BAD!" is very myopic. But if wasting bits on versions and variants is something that helps someone sleep better - they can easily and cheaply achieve that with a couple of bit ops. RFC 9562 robs developers of that choice.

Re: Fast cryptographically safe GUID generator for Go

#43

Post by shakna » Wed, Jul 09, 2025, 1:29 PM UTC

sdrapkin wrote: post #42

shakna wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, its defined to a series of specifications. [0] Ones that define an underlying structure, in bits. You have a 16byte random string. Thats great. But it is not a UUID. [0] https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9562.html > The UUID format is 16 octets (128 bits) in size; the variant bits in conjunction with the version bits described in the next sections determine finer structure.

No, Guid/uuids are defined as 128-bit labels used to uniquely identify objects in computer systems. This 128-bit/16-byte definition predates any RFCs that one may or may not choose to implement. I'm obviously aware of RFC 9562, and nowhere in the Guid library do I claim implementation of it. RFC 9562 is a choice, and one that should not be made blindly, or for you. It all starts with 16 random bytes. Google's uuid st…

Ok... But if you want to ignore the last twenty years, you should probably pick another name, because it has been used a particular way for two decades.

If you want "more choice" - use a name unbound by a tradition old enough to drink.