|
|
|
|
|
by steveklabnik
457 days ago
|
|
> On the other hand, though, in practice, I've wound up using Go in production quite a lot, and these bugs are excessively rare. I both want to agree with this, but also point to things like https://www.uber.com/en-CA/blog/data-race-patterns-in-go/, which found a bunch of bugs. They don't really contextualize it in terms of other kinds of bugs, so it's really hard to say from just this how rare they actually are. One of the insidious parts of non-segfaulting data race bugs is that you may not notice them until you do, so they're easy to under-report. Hence the checker used in the above study. > not all Go concurrency bugs can possibly segfault. I'd argue most of them can't, at least not on most common platforms. For sure, absolutely. And I do think that's meaningful and important. > I think we're still yet to fully understand how much of an impact Go's lack of safe concurrency will impact Go software in the long run. Yep, and I do suspect it'll be closer to Java than to C. |
|
I don't know if I'd evangelize for adopting Go on the scale that Uber has: I think Go works best for shared-nothing architectures and gets gradually less compelling as you dig into more complex concurrency. That said, since Uber is an early adopter, there is a decent chance that what they have learned will help future organizations avoid repeating some of the same issues, via improvements to tooling and the language.
[1]: https://go.dev/blog/loopvar-preview
[2]: https://go.dev/blog/synctest
[3]: https://github.com/mgechev/revive/blob/HEAD/RULES_DESCRIPTIO...
[4]: https://pkg.go.dev/gvisor.dev/gvisor/tools/checklocks