3 ms·

Packages like this are where I find the debate between idiomatic Go usage and general use cases difficult to side on. I would err on the idiomatic side by using

• jerf 12y ago
  "Use stdlib unless you can name a reason good enough to incur the cost of importing another package, which shouldn't be underestimated" is probably the short version of the idiomatic Go position. If you've only got three flags, there probably isn't any reason to use anything other than stdlib; you can't be winning big enough to pull in another package. If you're solely being driven by external scripts, it's harder to win than if you expect interactive usage. Of course, if you're writing a grep replacement and you've got half the alphabet in both capitalizations being used and half of them take arguments and a couple of things switch "modes"... well, by all means don't write that yourself, go get a package that does it well. Most of the stdlib is designed to hit the 95-99% use case, but if you're really pushing something hard you may need something else. Probably the only truly controversial bits of the Go standard answers are A: pulling in external packages isn't free and extremely frequently underestimated over the life of the product, they better be bringing some real value beyond merely preventing the developer's nose from crinkling a bit [1] and B: if you've only got three flags right now, don't go leaping to the conclusion you're in the process of writing a grep replacement; wait until you actually have the situation I described before dropping another package in (YAGNI). [1]: Contrast this with something like Node or Ruby that seems to encourage pulling in dozens of libraries, many of which may literally be single-digit lines of payload code, and it is considered totally worth it for developer tastes to alter significant elements of the language/runtime/stdlib. And I really do mean contrast this with... I am currently expressing no opinion as to which philosophy is "better".
  • deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  • XorNot 12y ago
    Of course if the Go stdlib produced something which looked more like almost every other Unix-like tool out there, then we wouldn't be having this discussion - but it doesn't, and leaving your app's commandline parsing until it becomes a catastrophe to manage (or your users complain) is technical debt whichever way you spin it. For a language like Go I also strongly question why keeping with the stdlib is necessary. There's value in a language like Python where you the environment is dynamic - Go produces statically linked binaries. Who cares what libraries you build them with? That's kind of the point.
    • jerf 12y ago
      "leaving your app's commandline parsing until it becomes a catastrophe to manage (or your users complain) is technical debt whichever way you spin it." I wouldn't deny that. But I do agree with the Go philosophy (now I am expressing an opinion) that says you should also not underestimate the ongoing technical price of taking on a 3rd party library. Most developers consider it "free". In practice, it isn't. It is entirely possible for the value to exceed the cost, but developers rarely make a sensible decision... they just account the costs as zero and go grab the library, and often don't even notice what they're paying, and certainly don't notice what they're costing the team. (Bear in mind we're talking "stdlib" vs. "grab a library" here, so NIH-syndrome is not currently on the table.) And you're also really prejudicing the discussion, and indeed probably your own mental visualization, by speaking as if every Go program is a budding "command-line catastrophe" waiting to happen, when in fact BY FAR the most common case is that your program takes zero command line parameters, and the vast bulk of the remainder is five or fewer with no complicating factors like "modes" or something. Those who are programming the remainder are free to grab any of the 5 libraries I saw mentioned in the discussion yesterday (and probably more since I last looked), and nobody is going to complain. "Who cares what libraries you build them with? That's kind of the point." The maintainer. Go is generally focused on "serious" programs who will be maintained by teams of developers over periods of time that typically involve 100% turnover (though, hopefully, not all at once). If you don't have that problem, well, Go is going to be less appealing to you and I invite you to consider other options. If you do have that problem, you either A: already know how big a problem that is and will tend to appreciate some of what Go has to say, even if you don't quite agree with the solution or B: in another five or six years will fit into A.
• sirclueless 12y ago
  In general I am inclined to agree with you. Given two equivalent libraries, if one is standard and one is pulled from github, the standard library should be preferred. If it were just a matter of developer ergonomics, I would agree with you in this case too. But the command line interface is the fundamental user-facing piece of a command-line program. If it's not intuitive and clean, the usability of the whole program suffers. The internal API is secondary (this is why I didn't try to "improve" anything here -- go's flag package is good enough and I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel). It's all about a good experience for users, and I don't think Go's stdlib flag package provides that. Commandline programs written in Go shouldn't feel like idiomatic Go programs, they should feel like idiomatic commandline programs.
• kelnos 12y ago
  If idiomatic Go has you preferring using packages that provide terrible, confusing, non-standard[1] UI to users of your program, then either idiomatic Go is wrong, or needs better interpretation. It's interesting that you acknowledge that struggle but settle on what I'd consider to be a poor choice for your users. Potato/potahto, I guess. [1] Whether you like it or not, GNU/BSD-style getopt/getopt_long is the standard these days, by a wide margin.