I quickly looked this over. Does Golang have some hidden ORM like feature that makes complex persistence easy? I spent the last three months working on a storage mechanism that controls all of CRUD at the document level across what is essentially Google Groups (each op is allowed to multiple groups). This is where web work is complex.
Came here to say the same thing. Go won't enter "crud webapp" market until they have a better story on relational db interactions. I'm afraid this is way beyond the current possibilities of the language as it offer barely any meta-programming technics, on purpose.
Did you had a look at sqlx? [1] Granted, it won't generate the queries for you - but parsing into structs works 95% of time without additional mapping for me. Coming from other languages I also found the amount of necessary typing a bit disturbing first. But then you can actually read code instead of orm framework documentation, issue trackers and workarounds.
sqlx didn't work in my case last time i tried (don't remember why exactly), but it's still far from any standard like sqlalchemy (python), hibernate (java) , active records (ruby),entity framework (.net), doctrine (php) or bookshelf (js).
Writing every select for every entity, with all the variations depending on whether you want to inner join with 1-n relationships (and which ones) is really tedious when you've got 30 entities in your model.
We use SQLalchemy at work and I would rather write queries by hand. A lot of that is because the documentation is a huge pain, but also because the object composition isn't intuitive. I've built a profile query builder in Go and it was pretty straight forward; I'm confident I could build an ORM in a couple of weeks.
sqlalchemy ( which i used and liked a lot) has multiple layers. query builder is the bottom one, but the most "challenging" one for go is probably the orm with things lazy loading and its parametrization ( such as eager loading of relationships).
keeping it all type safe ( not having the user cast interface{} to struct everywhere) and performant would be a challenge.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean about parameterization, but I suspect in general my notion of what an ORM is differs from yours (in particular, I don't assume lazy loading). Maybe what I'm thinking isn't appropriately called "ORM" (maybe "type relational mapping" is more appropriate?). At any rate, I don't think type safety should be a challenge (somehow a mapping must be generated for each type, just like SQLAlchemy--in Go this can be either explicit or inferred once via reflection or code generation) and I don't think performance would be more a challenge in Go than any other language (the trick to ORM performance is in building efficient SQL queries, not in reflection or type asserts).
compile-time code generation can only get you so far, unless you're ready to generate every single kind of query beforehand ( which grows exponentially with the number of -to-many relationship). You'll have to rely on introspection but i suspect things won't go smoothly.
anyway, it should make for a good exercise i'm sure.
as for the definition of Object-Relationnal-Mapper the idea is to completely abstract the fact that you're storing your object graph ( or struct graph in the case of go) in a relationnal database. To do so, the developper provides meta data , like an xml file or annotation, to describe the mapping. This is a pretty hard problem.
It's not too difficult. Where I work, we're building a BI tool that maps domain concepts ("objects") to fields in relational databases (we're using Python and building out SQLAlchemy queries, but we're not doing anything that wouldn't easily translate into Go). The domain concepts are analogous to structs in Go or simple classes in Python. You only need to get the mapping data once (in our case, the user configures these mappings in the UI and then we load them at runtime, but these could come from anywhere) and from then on there is no magic.
If you know ahead of time what your types are, then you can do everything in code gen easily.
Thanks for the link, i didn't know about it. From what i see from the documentation (which looks pretty sparse) it doesn't implement lazy loading or any kind of mapping between SQL relation (1-n , n-n) to and from the go structs, so i guess it's pretty far from any of today's standard.
i've seen companies forbid the use of ORMs by fear that developpers will abuse lazy loading and collapse the db instead of using inner joins ( which any decent orm is able to do btw).
It could make sense in some context, and i'm pretty sure that any sufficiently advanced service has so many custom and optimized queries that an ORM doesn't make a difference.
however IMHO, ORMs do play a very important role in the beginning of the project when prototyping screens and apis, and when rapid iteration is important. It isn't a coincidence that RoR advertized active record as much, that symfony use doctrine in all tutorials, and that java , .net and node.js frameworks all include an ORM component.
I'm no expert, but I think for ORM like you're referring to, the language would need features like generics, which Go doesn't have and may never have. At best there would be a code generator which would allow you to write your stuff in a higher-level language which would generate compilable and efficient Go code in turn.
Code generation is one way to get around generics. Go also stores all the type data at runtime so you can inspect the arguments passed to any function, which gives the same kind of generic behavior in any dynamically typed language.
So you definitely could implement an ORM in go without code generation - it's almost certainly been done.
I've been experimenting with a library called `refmt` which does the Object Mapping part, but explicitly not the Relational part. It's still experimental, but you might like it, and test coverage is shaping up nicely.
The idea is by focusing completely on making Object Mapping consistent and powerfully customizable, and then composing that with either serialization formats or relational storage, we'll get good things. Right now we seem to be at and awkward hump of complexity where every new DB binding ends up implementing their own object mapping, increasing everyone's complexity, overhead, and decreasing reusability of code; refmt will hopefully represent a break from that.
object mapping is the most important part of the ORM experience in my opinion. Writing DB queries isn't hard or even annoying, manually doing model binding constantly is frickin infuriating.
Djangos ORM is really really good. Plus it's integration with RabbitMQ through Celery, and so on. Django is kind of the golden standard of web frameworks. (Not having tried rails)
Golang is quite strict about unused variables and imports (the last one is fixed by an external tool). This IMO makes it a little bit rigid for prototyping web apps.
Developed by a very smart, nice guy who used this to make Gogs among other things. I've been using Gogs for almost 2.5 years now and I've had zero downtime or issues. It's reliability and efficiently is one of the reasons I began very strongly learning and using Golang more.
A Django project can't use less than 100mb of memory because of Python. Gogs is a full github clone which uses 5-10mb on average. When you're trying to run something self-hosted it's super valuable that you don't need a huge server(i.e. $$$) just to make it responsive which helps make self-hosting make sense economically.
It's a simple http router, it just filter requests and assign them to an handler, it's hardly a framework like Symfony, Laravel, Django, Rails or Spring. People need to stop calling http routers "frameworks".
People are going to write code for multiple reason. You can't complain about people writing opensource code, you're not forced to use it.
This framework has been around forever and not really. Most people use the standard library unless they need better routing than the standard library provides.
There are actually very few web frameworks that provide much other than a router in Go. Most of the frameworks are actually just packages that can be used for all sorts of things. e.g. Beego by astaxie
Well I wasn't commenting on age of particular projects. I had not heard of Beego so now I still feel there is a bit of over growth. Leads to confusion over what to use when you do want better routing which I think is pretty much every project. Perhaps routing will continue to improve in the standard library such that it does not feel like I need to pick a package or roll my own.
A lot of web developers learned it, and a very natural tendency is to use a new medium in service of the old paradigm. The first tv broadcasts were a bunch of guys sitting at a table, reading the news just like they did on the radio.
