A few years ago, when I started pondering about the possibility of porting juju to the Go language, one of the first pieces of the puzzle that were put in place was goyaml: a Go package to parse and serialize a yaml document. This was just an experiment and, as a sane route to get started, a Go layer that does all the language-specific handling was written on top of the libyaml C scanner, parser, and serializer library.
This was a good initial plan, but for a number of reasons the end goal was always to have a pure Go implementation. Having a C layer in a Go program slows down builds significantly due to the time taken to build the C code, makes compiling in other platforms and cross-compiling harder, has certain runtime penalties, and also forces the application to drop the memory safety guarantees offered by Go.
Last week I was part of a rant with a couple of coworkers around the fact Go handles errors for expected scenarios by returning an error value instead of using exceptions or a similar mechanism. This is a rather controversial topic because people have grown used to having errors out of their way via exceptions, and Go brings back an improved version of a well known pattern previously adopted by a number of languages — including C — where errors are communicated via return values. This means that errors are in the programmer’s face and have to be dealt with all the time. In addition, the controversy extends towards the fact that, in languages with exceptions, every unadorned error comes with a full traceback of what happened and where, which in some cases is convenient.
This weekend the proper environment settled out for sorting a pet peeve that shows up every once in a while when coding: writing logic that interacts with other applications in the system via their stdin and stdout streams is often more involved than it should be, which seems pretty ironic when sitting in front of a Unix-like system.
There are a number of common misconceptions in software development surrounding the idea of concurrency. This has been coming for decades, and some of the issues have just been reinforced one more time in an otherwise interesting post in LinkedIn’s engineering blog that recommends their development framework.
Such issues may be observed throughout the post, but can be elucidated via this short paragraph: Continue reading →
These ancient entries were taken from my old Advogato diary, written in my early twenties, a year after I joined the development team of Conectiva Linux. I’m copying them for historic purposes, with the content untouched. It’s curious to look back and have such details of what was going on at the time, things that feel good, and things that feel awkward such as the “Dear Diary, …” style of writing, and the amount of exclamations!!
In the previous post, I explored a bit how ephemeral most of the artifacts of software development processes are. One of these processes is code reviewing, which is arguably a major player in code quality, knowledge acquisition, and even team dynamics.
Even being so important, the outcome of the code review process — the review itself — tends to reach a very limited audience and have a short life time. It’ll be hard to change that picture given the nature of reviews: they are conversational, and address specific issues for the integration of a change in the project. At the same time, even if code reviews are not generally useful as permanent documentation, we can increase their value as reference material by improving the quality of those conversations. Having a good conversation has many other great side effects, of course.
As a small step in that direction, what follows are personal guidelines that I have been evolving empirically over the years as a software developer and code reviewer. They may not bring you fortune and fame, and are not always easy to apply, but hopefully they will help improving your experience as a member of your team and the value of those reviews.
Lately I’ve been considering the amount of waste we produce during software development, and how to increase the amount of recycled content. I’m not talking about actual trash, though, but rather about software development artifacts.
Over the years, we’ve learned about and put in practice several means for improving the quality and success rate of projects we create or contribute to. We have practices such as sprints to get people together with high communication bandwidth; we have code reviews for sharing knowledge and improving project quality; we’ve got technical leadership roles to mentor developers and guide the progress of projects; we’ve created kanban boards and burndown charts to help people visualize what they’re going through; and so on.
Our son Otávio was born recently. Right in the first few days, we decided to keep tight control on the feeding times for a while, as it is an intense routine pretty unlike anything else, and obviously critical for the health of the baby. I imagined that it wouldn’t be hard to find an Android app that would do that in a reasonable way, and indeed there are quite a few. We went with Baby Care, as it has a polished interface and more features than we’ll ever use. The app also includes some basic statistics, but not enough for our needs. Luckily, though, it is able to export the data as a CSV file, and post-processing that file with the R language is easy, and allows extracting some fun facts about what the routine of a healthy baby can look like in the first month, as shown below.
I’m glad to announce experimental support for multi-document transactions in the mgo driver that integrates MongoDB with the Go language. The support is done via a driver extension, so it works with any MongoDB release supported by the driver (>= 1.8).
Here is a quick highlight list to get your brain ticking before the details:
Operations may span multiple collections
Handles changes, inserts and removes
No additional locks or leases
Works with existing data
Let’s see what these actually mean and how the goodness is done.