I haven’t followed the history of the feature, but could anyone explain why we had to wait until version 11 to be able to build a project from any location we wanted ? I’m having a hard time believing it’s purely for technical reasons, but then i don’t understand either what has changed that makes it a desirable feature now rather than before.
Go has always had a very strong dependency on GOPATH and the other path-based semantics that are quite core to the language's import system, so it's understandable that a large change would be quite hard to pull off (for political reasons if nothing else). Personally (having been burned by this mis-feature regularly ever since I started using Go almost 5 years ago) I don't really like this design, but to quote George Lucas "it's stylistically designed to be that way".
Go has always been extensively opinionated (gofmt is just one example of that). This is also the beauty of Go - everything is just as expected once you understand the "opinions".
The rather late support of "out-of-tree" building might be caused by a conflict between groups pressing to refrain from the $GOPATH approach (rising in size due to rising Go popularity itself) and Go Dev Team / early-adopters especially as the $GOPATH approach is a central part of Go.
While I can see the intention of Go modules, I believe that many people which belong to the first group migrated from other languages like JavaScript and expect to migrate the workflow as well. I highly encourage everyone to try the $GOPATH approach before rooting for any side.
>While I can see the intention of Go modules, I believe that many people which belong to the first group migrated from other languages like JavaScript and expect to migrate the workflow as well. I highly encourage everyone to try the $GOPATH approach before rooting for any side.
I'm having a hard time believing the go core team changed its mind upon popular pressure only. Are you sure there wasn't a real-life painful scenario that appeared or grew in importance , and convinced them an alternative system had to be provided ?
The recent(ish) interview with Russ Cox on the "Go Time" podcast [1] sheds some light on this, but I listened to it long enough ago that I can't remember the entire reasoning.
I can't speak to this with absolute certainty, but I have some speculation to offer. The story of GOPATH is tightly intertwined with the story of package management.
Go is a Google project, and Google has a very unique approach to package management: commit everything to the monorepo. The GOPATH is, in essence, a monorepo. If you want to change the API of a library, well, you can just change all its callers across your GOPATH, too. And so for a long time the Go team was unconvinced that package management was a problem.
For example, the Go FAQ [0] still has this to say:
> How should I manage package versions using "go get"?
> "Go get" does not have any explicit concept of package versions. Versioning is a source of significant complexity, especially in large code bases, and we are unaware of any approach that works well at scale in a large enough variety of situations to be appropriate to force on all Go users...
> Packages intended for public use should try to maintain backwards compatibility as they evolve. The Go 1 compatibility guidelines are a good reference here: don't remove exported names, encourage tagged composite literals, and so on. If different functionality is required, add a new name instead of changing an old one. If a complete break is required, create a new package with a new import path.
It is true that if you write perfectly backwards compatible code, then you don't have a versioning problem, but if you think that's a viable solution you're ignoring certain realities of software engineering.
It wasn't until early last year that Russ Cox [1] publicly declared that versioning was a problem and set out to introduce a package manager into the Go toolchain. As it turns out, GOPATH is entirely incompatible with the approach to package versioning that the Go team settled on. You simply can't have two versions of the same package in your GOPATH, unless you're willing to rename one and rewrite all the import paths. Given that public opinion had turned again GOPATH [2], it was finally time to do away with it.
So it took about a year and a half from the time the Go team admitted GOPATH was a problem to shipping a release that made it unnecessary. That's really not too bad. The frustrating part of this saga were the first seven years during which the Go team refused to admit there was a problem at all.
The Go team, for years, actually insisted that package management was something the Go community had to go and figure out. As you say, Google uses a monorepo where they check everything into a single tree. One of the core Go developers -- I forget who, unfortunately -- actually claimed at one point that they didn't want to design a package management system because they didn't know how; since Google used a monorepo, designing a real package management system not based on a monorepo would apparently be beyond them.
My personal theory is that what made Russ Cox cave in was his discussions with Sam Boyer. Cox thought Boyer was going down the wrong path, and thought he had a better solution. Unfortunately, the Go community didn't seem to have read the discussions the two were having, because pretty much everyone thought Dep (Boyer's tool) was blessed by the Go team and was going to be the official package management tool. I can forgive the drama of the end result is a real, non-Google package management system, though.
(While I didn't appreciate the drama, I'm somewhat relieved Dep is not going to be the official solution. Dep is okay when it works, but inherits pretty much all the warts of Glide, which Boyer also worked on. Glide has been an absolute nightmare to work with. Dep is in fact worse than Glide in some respects -- due to weaknesses in its solver, it's completely incompatible with certain significant community packages such as the Kubernetes client. Of course, Dep is not yet 1.0, but I would not say things were looking that promising.)
> My personal theory is that what made Russ Cox cave in was his discussions with Sam Boyer. Cox thought Boyer was going down the wrong path, and thought he had a better solution.
That's certainly my understanding of the situation. Matt Farina has a great commented history of dep and vgo [0] if you haven't already seen it. The comments are particularly enlightening.
Still, it's not clear to me what made the Go team get into the package management game at all. As you say, for years they were happy to leave that as a community problem. But something spurred them to declare that Dep was an "official experiment."
> Dep is okay when it works, but inherits pretty much all the warts of Glide, which Boyer also worked on.
Funny, I've had exactly the opposite experience. Glide caused us plenty of trouble at CockroachDB, but Dep has worked flawlessly, if slowly. I've also found Sam to be exceptionally friendly and responsive to feedback [1] [2].
Indeed, as I said, Dep is okay when it works, until it doesn't. This [1], for example, is a blocking issue, and requires some manual editing of the lock file to get around. I've had other issues. The issues pale in comparison to the horribleness of Glide, but it's interesting just how these tools end up being so damn flaky.
Ah, that is an unfortunate issue, and the error message is unreadable to boot.
> The issues pale in comparison to the horribleness of Glide, but it's interesting just how these tools end up being so damn flaky.
That's the crux of it, isn't it? The dozens of Go package managers that have come and gone over the years have provided us with substantial evidence that building a stable package manager requires several years of development. I think that's why I'm frustrated that the Go team hit the reset button again. Dep has accumulated plenty of bug fixes over the years to handle more and more of these edge cases, but vgo had to start from scratch.
Not only buggy, theses tools didn't follow the simplicity that we like in Go. For example gb was more in the Go philosophy for my taste. I was surprise that it was not chosen as the official experiment.
Personally, I actually never thought Dep was blessed by the Go team to the point that it "was going to be official". So I wouldn't be so fast to say "pretty much everyone". Notably, some loud people "thought" so; I've noticed that many quiet people quietly did not (as can be seen e.g. by the numerous voiced agreements and endorsements of the vgo prototype on the mailing list). Again, I personally expected exactly something similar to what was pulled off in the end to happen. Especially given that whenever somebody started claiming Dep "is going to be official", rsc/rob (don't remember) seemed fast to correct that it's not so, and that it's only an official experiment. Even Sam, after AFAIR being corrected so, was seemingly careful to say only about an official experiment in public emails, readme, etc.
I have numerous thoughts about developments like this one. Mostly, that I've seen a similar situation happen in numerous communities already, Go totally not being the first nor the last one, that the steering commitee have the last say, and may have different taste. I learnt to accept that their choice usually does have merit and usually actually ends for the better. I learnt that it requires a lot of humbleness and sometimes gritting one's teeth, learning to let go of hurt feelings, and accepting that someone else may have reasons you still need to grow to understand. Personally, my own view is that for Sam, this was probably the first time something like this happened, and he wasn't prepared for the hit. And I agree those never stop tasting bitter, given the work one has put in a project of this kind. A good will, hard contribution, being de facto rejected in the end. A child being "lost". But that's not the whole truth, because the child is in this case reborn, though in somewhat different shape. The experiment has served its purpose and brought a lot of value, a significant contribution. On the other hand, I do sometimes wonder, can such situations and misunderstandings be avoided somehow? Or is the world just not perfect enough? And by the way, I also think that Russ was actually taken by surprise by the extent of the reaction. I suppose that's why it took him so long to react, which let the situation and complains get somewhat louder than necessary.
But that's too just my personal opinion. One of many in this somewhat unfortunate situation. I just wanted to also let my steam off in the end, starting to grow more and more tired of the recurring claims that "everybody is surprised". On the contrary, I'm personally one of the people looking forward to vgo, and strongly unconvinced by what dep has become.
What impression you had probably depends on whether you read the Go mailing lists or not. All of my colleagues, myself included, had gotten the impression, who knows how, that Dep was official. We don't follow the Go lists.
The Dep situation is very similar to that of Eric S. Raymond's attempt at replacing the Linux kernel's config tool. Instead of presenting a design proposal and discussing it in public, he pretty much finished the project on his own, perhaps thinking that a working version would lead to adoption by users and thus forcing the kernel team to accept something users liked. Or perhaps he assumed he had clout in the Linux community, which of course he didn't. Either way, this kind of brute-forcing just leads to wasted work and resentment.
That's a very interesting reply for me, thanks. Reflecting on it, actually I don't really follow the list either nowadays, due to not enough time. But I feel I kinda do know the “who's who” of the community, and thus I sometimes just glance through some threads (e.g. on HN) looking only for what did a core member of the Go team say. Recently, I repeatedly feel it's important to quickly find out who's the “important people with power” in an online tech forum. I don’t want this to sound as some kind of a critique; just trying to put down how I believe I came to the conclusion I expressed in the above comment, to try and better understand it for myself.
+1 - I believe that it stems from the monorepo mindset.
That's fine and works perfectly well in the appropriate environment (e.g. large structured work environment with processes etc etc), but for my personal work I prefer to just checkout wherever the hell I want and go from there. Really looking forward to module support so I can use golang for some personal small-scale projects easily without having to go through a lot of the ceremony of setting go up on say a raspberry pi - just checkout and go (no pun intended) will be a breath of fresh air.
Can someone help me understand why people hate gopath? We have a script called govars.sh at the root of every project and it sets the gopath exactly the same way one would use virtualenv in Python. We remove the default one from .bashrc or .profile. This basically makes gopath disappear entirely - we never bother explaining to new devs what it "really" means. Just ask them to use our template project folder structure.
I've the same workflow, but like you said gopath disappear. You just hate gopath also :-)
I mean, with go modules you will have the same workflow but without the need to adjust the envs.
At least i have found it limiting when I want have a mix of languages, and i am forced to have all the go packages in the root folder or live with strange package names. Hate is used a bit too often for my liking - nuisance would be more appropriate.
You are right that it is solvable. And in many other languages the package management etc have grown independently of the core language itself, from the community. So the attacks on the golang team seem a bit strange. Maybe they thought that these solutions would come from outside the core language team.
In my experience, it's a real pain to get golang projects to build in Jenkins, and it's probably the same for any CI/CD setup, simply because of the gopath. Jenkins agents expect to set up its build directories a very particular way, and so does go with its GOPATH. Juggling it just right to get it to work is frustratingly difficult.
In fact, the one main reason I'm looking forward to this release is because of the elimination of GOPATH. It'll make my day-to-day operations at work FAR easier.
In gitlab ci, we run govars.sh which not just sets the gopath but also adds the "bin" folder to PATH. Then when we run tests we know where to get our compiled binary from. Our govars also sets the path on where to find our conf.yaml for env config. Didn't know it would cause so many issues in Jenkins!
I disagree that GOPATH is only appropriate for monolithic repos. I think it works nicely with distributed open source development and has some nice properties there that are lacking in "project-based" approaches.
It's true that it encourages working with all the code in GOPATH. This is a good thing. Your GOPATH is a view of the whole Go ecosystem. You fix a bug where it makes sense and it is picked up by all users. Sadly, vendoring already messed this up.
I think it's insanity when every program has a different idea of what code a given import path refers to (like is often the case with project-based package managers and vendoring as well). It's no fun to juggle the version differences in your head while working on multiple projects.
Go modules have some good ideas here. Semantic import versioning hopefully reduces the number of different versions you have to consider.
Doing the version selection not per-project but globally for all of GOPATH should still result in a working (but not necessarily reproducible or high-fidelity) build. It definitely reduces the amount of code you need to deal with.
