5 ms·

That's why most of the tools I use in my day to day work are Go or Rust binaries.

by oweiler 8y ago

carlmr 8y ago
They're also fast and small, which while not always a big matter is very satisfying for me.
- weberc2 8y ago
  I work in a Python shop. The Docker images we build are nearly 1 GB. I just built a Go service whose image is only 2.5MB. Admittedly it’s much simpler than the Python apps, but even a complex Go app would never reach the size of our Python app for a number of reasons: 1. Python apps require a distro base image while Go can run on scratch 2. Python images ship with the full standard library; not just the bits you import 3. In Python, if you add a dependency only to use 1 function or variable, you still end up with the whole dependency in your Docker image, while I’m pretty sure Go’s linker strips unused code.
  - carlmr 8y ago
    I agree, I'm not a python fan. Python has a few good libraries I can't find in other languages, but it's slow, bad for multi core utilization, hard to distribute, is very wasteful with how many dependencies need to be included, has a terrible package manager and I prefer static strong typing.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      Have you tried mypy? It's a pretty good static typing system for Python - arguably better than Go's.
      - weberc2 8y ago
        TL;DR - I continue to root for Python's typing story, but it's just not there yet. I have, and I wanted to like it. On its face it seems like it should be a lot better than Go's--after all, it supports generics and union types! But it falls over in trivial cases, like recursive types (i.e., there's no way to model tree structures such as JSON or linked lists). A few other hard/impossible/confusing things come to mind: 1. How do you declare a typevar for a certain scope. If I define a type parameter `T` for function `foo`, I only want `T` to be scoped to `foo`. I don't want the type checker getting confused with `T`s for other functions/classes/etc. 2. What is the signature for a function that takes args/kwargs? 3. It straight up doesn't work with popular libraries like SQLAlchemy (last I checked, these were simply not supported because the likes of SQLAlchemy are "too magical"--this is a fair take, but frustratingly limiting for users). These are just a few because my memory is poor, but I run into these sorts of things by the dozens every time I try to use mypy. It's just not ready for prime time. Go's type system is limiting, but its limitations are much more predictable and even less limiting (it turns out recursive types and poor-man's union types are quite a bit better than first-class, non-recursive union types, for example).
        carlmr 8y ago
        It's also tacked on. It's a bit too optional. If one team member doesn't care about typing he makes all his colleagues do the work to make his code work with mypy.
      - kartickv 8y ago
        I'd like type annotations to be used to optimise performance. After all, if it has been statically verified that a particular variable is always an instance of class X, why not use that to optimise code? This is an argument for type annotations to be integrated into every dynamically typed language, rather than tacked on via an external tool.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - icebraining 8y ago
    While it can't compete with 2.5MB, python:3.6-alpine (which includes points 1 and 2) weighs less than 100MB. You need a lot of Python code to get to 1GB.
    - weberc2 8y ago
      Fair point. Our largest Python image has only 255 Mb of Python dependencies and ~50 Mb of source code. If we could use alpine (our compliance auditors strongly prefer centos base images), it would only be ~400 Mb. This is easily an order of magnitude bigger than an equivalent Go program, but still quite a lot better.
      - icebraining 8y ago
        Is that really just Python code?? Must be over a million lines, no? I've worked with Odoo, which is a bit of a kitchen-sink (ERP, CRM, POS, sales, accounting, invoice, stock management, manufacturing control, website builder, marketing and a bunch more) and its Python code weighs just 15MB, the rest is JavaScript or data files.
        weberc2 8y ago
        It's not just souce code--it's also docs and test code and other things that are tedious to omit given our current Docker image hierarchy and repository structure. Our docs are largely Sphinx docs in Python docstrings; a decent minifier could probably reduce this, but it's probably not worthwhile for a ~5% improvement on overall image size.
    - carlmr 8y ago
      My favorite Python library is pandas. If I only include this with pyinstaller I already get a >500MB executable. IMHO unacceptably large, but that's because Python doesn't know which parts of pandas it might need to execute the program.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]

That's why most of the tools I use in my day to day work are Go or Rust binaries.

carlmr 8y ago

They're also fast and small, which while not always a big matter is very satisfying for me.

weberc2 8y ago
I work in a Python shop. The Docker images we build are nearly 1 GB. I just built a Go service whose image is only 2.5MB. Admittedly it’s much simpler than the Python apps, but even a complex Go app would never reach the size of our Python app for a number of reasons: 1. Python apps require a distro base image while Go can run on scratch 2. Python images ship with the full standard library; not just the bits you import 3. In Python, if you add a dependency only to use 1 function or variable, you still end up with the whole dependency in your Docker image, while I’m pretty sure Go’s linker strips unused code.
- carlmr 8y ago
  I agree, I'm not a python fan. Python has a few good libraries I can't find in other languages, but it's slow, bad for multi core utilization, hard to distribute, is very wasteful with how many dependencies need to be included, has a terrible package manager and I prefer static strong typing.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Have you tried mypy? It's a pretty good static typing system for Python - arguably better than Go's.
    - weberc2 8y ago
      TL;DR - I continue to root for Python's typing story, but it's just not there yet. I have, and I wanted to like it. On its face it seems like it should be a lot better than Go's--after all, it supports generics and union types! But it falls over in trivial cases, like recursive types (i.e., there's no way to model tree structures such as JSON or linked lists). A few other hard/impossible/confusing things come to mind: 1. How do you declare a typevar for a certain scope. If I define a type parameter `T` for function `foo`, I only want `T` to be scoped to `foo`. I don't want the type checker getting confused with `T`s for other functions/classes/etc. 2. What is the signature for a function that takes args/kwargs? 3. It straight up doesn't work with popular libraries like SQLAlchemy (last I checked, these were simply not supported because the likes of SQLAlchemy are "too magical"--this is a fair take, but frustratingly limiting for users). These are just a few because my memory is poor, but I run into these sorts of things by the dozens every time I try to use mypy. It's just not ready for prime time. Go's type system is limiting, but its limitations are much more predictable and even less limiting (it turns out recursive types and poor-man's union types are quite a bit better than first-class, non-recursive union types, for example).
      - carlmr 8y ago
        It's also tacked on. It's a bit too optional. If one team member doesn't care about typing he makes all his colleagues do the work to make his code work with mypy.
    - kartickv 8y ago
      I'd like type annotations to be used to optimise performance. After all, if it has been statically verified that a particular variable is always an instance of class X, why not use that to optimise code? This is an argument for type annotations to be integrated into every dynamically typed language, rather than tacked on via an external tool.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- icebraining 8y ago
  While it can't compete with 2.5MB, python:3.6-alpine (which includes points 1 and 2) weighs less than 100MB. You need a lot of Python code to get to 1GB.
  - weberc2 8y ago
    Fair point. Our largest Python image has only 255 Mb of Python dependencies and ~50 Mb of source code. If we could use alpine (our compliance auditors strongly prefer centos base images), it would only be ~400 Mb. This is easily an order of magnitude bigger than an equivalent Go program, but still quite a lot better.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      Is that really just Python code?? Must be over a million lines, no? I've worked with Odoo, which is a bit of a kitchen-sink (ERP, CRM, POS, sales, accounting, invoice, stock management, manufacturing control, website builder, marketing and a bunch more) and its Python code weighs just 15MB, the rest is JavaScript or data files.
      - weberc2 8y ago
        It's not just souce code--it's also docs and test code and other things that are tedious to omit given our current Docker image hierarchy and repository structure. Our docs are largely Sphinx docs in Python docstrings; a decent minifier could probably reduce this, but it's probably not worthwhile for a ~5% improvement on overall image size.
  - carlmr 8y ago
    My favorite Python library is pandas. If I only include this with pyinstaller I already get a >500MB executable. IMHO unacceptably large, but that's because Python doesn't know which parts of pandas it might need to execute the program.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]