How is the byte counting reader supposed to work in user space without putting the buffer in user space? The article claims there is a way but I want to see what is meant by counting bytes in that case.
sendfile(2) and io.ReaderFrom both return the number of bytes transmitted. The issue is that users are unaware of (or forget about) the optional interface upgrades and fail to define all the methods required for interface upgrades on their wrapper structs. You can definitely make a counting reader with a minimal performance loss, but the proper solution is less obvious than it ideally should be.
Isn’t this a symptom of structural/duck typing where interfaces are not declared? In Java for all its faults this wouldn’t happen because you’d be forced to implement all the interfaces.
The logic uses a type assertion to safely verify if the value backing the provided io.Reader interface also implements the io.ReaderFrom interface. If it matches, then it will use the more efficient implementation
if rf, ok := dst.(ReaderFrom); ok {
return rf.ReadFrom(src)
}
> In Java for all its faults this wouldn’t happen because you’d be forced to implement all the interfaces.
I don't think I would go that far. In Java, many libraries make heavy use of the `instanceof` keyword, which is more or less the same as Go type assertions.
Yes, but contrary to Go, if you change an interface it will be a compiler error if additional methods are missing, unless they have default implementations.
In Java type assertions are mostly used when writing code pre-generics style, like downcasting from a common subclasse into the actual implementation, not to see if an interface is supported, as it is a given from the type system.
How is a package level interface check a “language hack”? They are straight forward and provide a user the same compile time guarantees as the Java implements keyword.
This is almost like the expression problem. Copy is a new operation, and you introduced a new type, thus creating a new grid cell nobody from either side could have reasonably known about - except for the fact Copy is in the standard library so you could have known about it but not done anything.
A good reminder. It is surprising first time you encounter it.
Same for Rust. As https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/std/io/fn.copy.html says, std::io::copy can use copy_file_range(2), sendfile(2), or splice(2).
How is the byte counting reader supposed to work in user space without putting the buffer in user space? The article claims there is a way but I want to see what is meant by counting bytes in that case.
sendfile(2) and io.ReaderFrom both return the number of bytes transmitted. The issue is that users are unaware of (or forget about) the optional interface upgrades and fail to define all the methods required for interface upgrades on their wrapper structs. You can definitely make a counting reader with a minimal performance loss, but the proper solution is less obvious than it ideally should be.
Isn’t this a symptom of structural/duck typing where interfaces are not declared? In Java for all its faults this wouldn’t happen because you’d be forced to implement all the interfaces.
> Isn’t this a symptom of structural/duck typing where interfaces are not declared
Yes, essentially duck typing. See https://github.com/golang/go/blob/65504872cbca64d77f45828409...
The logic uses a type assertion to safely verify if the value backing the provided io.Reader interface also implements the io.ReaderFrom interface. If it matches, then it will use the more efficient implementation
> In Java for all its faults this wouldn’t happen because you’d be forced to implement all the interfaces.I don't think I would go that far. In Java, many libraries make heavy use of the `instanceof` keyword, which is more or less the same as Go type assertions.
Yes, but contrary to Go, if you change an interface it will be a compiler error if additional methods are missing, unless they have default implementations.
In Java type assertions are mostly used when writing code pre-generics style, like downcasting from a common subclasse into the actual implementation, not to see if an interface is supported, as it is a given from the type system.
It’s pretty common to type check interface implementations in Go using package-level casts.
I know, it is yet another language hack, just like the iota/const dance, instead of proper language constructs.
How is a package level interface check a “language hack”? They are straight forward and provide a user the same compile time guarantees as the Java implements keyword.
Because they are a workaround for what should be a language feature in first place, just like on ML languages to type check structural types.
Zero-Copy in Go: Why magic is an antipattern, and: performance is observable behavior.
What would you prefer?
I do think it is criminal this is not documented (https://pkg.go.dev/io#Copy), but I think io.Copy is fine as an API.
it is documented by saying it calls ReadFrom or WriteTo
Interesting premise for a post, but I had to stop midway due to the AI slop writing adding meaningless information.
Beware, there are versions of go where sendfile is broken and only sends the first 4k of a file on macos.
Ugh, AI slop writing.
Definitely written by codex.
This is almost like the expression problem. Copy is a new operation, and you introduced a new type, thus creating a new grid cell nobody from either side could have reasonably known about - except for the fact Copy is in the standard library so you could have known about it but not done anything.