UUID package coming to Go standard library (opens in new tab)

I was disappointed by Go's poor support for human-focused logging. The log module is so basic that one might as well just use Printf. The slog module technically offers a line-based handler, but getting a traditional format out of it is painful at best, it lacks features that are common elsewhere, and it's somehow significantly slower than the json handler. I can only guess that it was added as an afterthought, by someone who doesn't normally do that kind of logging.

To be fair, I suppose this might make sense if Go is intended only for enterprisey environments. I often do projects outside of those environments, though, so I ended up spending a lot of time on a side quest to build what I expected to be built-in.

I haven't explored enough of the stdlib yet to know what else that I might expect is not there. If you have a wish list, would you care to share it?

In practice, most orgs with sufficiently large and complex data models use the term "UUID" to mean a pure 128-bit value that makes no reference to the UUID standard. It is not difficult to find yourself with a set of application requirements that cannot be satisfied with a standardized UUID.

The sophistication of our use case scenarios for UUIDs exceeds their original design assumptions. They don't readily support every operation you might want to do on a UUID.

If just using random bytes, you still need to make decisions about how to serialize, put it in a URL, logging etc so you’re basically just inventing you’re own format anyway for a problem that’s already solved.

One example where UUIDs are useful is usage as primary keys in databases. The constraints provide benefits, such as global uniqueness across distributed systems.

Basically, who runs golang?

The perfectionists are correct, UUIDs are awful and if there's a pile of standards that all have small problems the best thing you can do is make a totally new standard to add to the already too long list.

The in-the-trenches system software devs want this BAD. Check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universally_unique_identifier#... They want a library that flawlessly interops with everything on that list, ideally. Something you can trust and will not deprecate a function you need for live code and it just works. I admit a certain affinity to this perspective.

The cryptobros want to wait, there is some temporary current turmoil in UUID land. Not like "drama" but things are in flux and it would be horrible for golang to be stuck permanently supporting forever some interim thing that officially gets dropped (or worse, under scrutiny has a security hole or something, but for reverse compatibility with older/present golang would need permanent-ish reverse compatibility) Can't we just wait until 2027 or so? This is not the ideal time to set UUID policy in concrete. Just wait a couple more months or a year or two? https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9562

I think I covered the three groups that are fighting pretty accurately and at least semi fairly, I did make fun of the perfectionists a little but cut me a break everyone makes fun of those guys.

So, yeah, a "small technical bit" but its actually a super huge architectural / leadership / management decision.

I hope they get it correct, I love golang and have a side thing with tinygo. If you're doing something with microcontrollers that doesn't use networking and you're not locked in to a framework/rtos, just use tinygo its SO cool. Its just fun. I with tinygo had any or decent networking. Why would I need zephyr if I have go routines? Hmm.

I've been around the block a few times with UUID-alike situations and the worst thing they could decide is to swing to an extreme. They'll probably be OK this is not golangs first time around the block either.

It'll probably be OK. I hope.

Watch as they stand at the watering hole, bored and listless. A sad look on their faces, knowing that now that Go has generics, all their joy has left their life. Like the dog that caught his tail, they are confused.

One looks at his friends as if to say, "Now what?"

Suddenly there is a noise.

All heads turn as they see the HN post about UUIDs.

One of the members pounces on it. "Why debate this when the entire industry is collapsing?"

No reply. Silence.

His peers give a half-hearted smile, as if to say, "Thanks for trying" but the truth is apparent. The joy of hating on programming languages is nil when AI is the only thing looking at code any more.

The Go hater returns to the waterhole. Defeated.

Some chuckle head decided to replace the system with UUIDs. Now, they are no longer human memorable/readable/writable on paper/anything useful. Even better, they must have used some home grown implementation, because the codes were weirdly sequential. If you ever had to look at a dump of codes, the ids are almost identical minus a digit somewhere in the middle.

Destructive change that ruined a perfectly functional system.

It's funny how fast it is to just implement a counter and how much people rely on UUIDs to avoid it. If you already use postgres somewhere, just create a "counter" table for your namespace. You can easily count 10K-100k values per second or faster, with room to grow if you outscale that.

What do you get? The most efficient, compressible little integers you could ever want. You unlock data structures like roaring bitmaps/ treemaps. You cut memory to 25% depending on your cardinality (ie: you can use u16 or u32 in memory sometimes). You get insane compression benefits where you can get rows of these integers to take a few bits of data each after compression. You get faster hashmap lookups. It's just insane how this compounds into crazy downstream wins.

It is absolutely insane how little cost it is to do this and how many optimizations you unlock. But people somehow think that id generation will be their bottleneck, or maybe it's just easier to avoid a DB sometimes, or whatever, and so we see UUIDs everywhere. Although, agreed that most of the time you can just generate the unique id for data yourself.

In fairness, UUID is easier, but damn it wrecks performance.

BASKETBALL-9a176cbe-7655-4850-9e7f-b98c4b3b4704-FISH

CAKE-3a01d58f-59d3-4b0c-87dc-4152c816f442-POTATO

“Which row was it, ‘basketball fish’ or ‘cake potato’?

Of course, the words would need to be a checksum. As soon as you introduce them, nobody is looking at the hex again. Which is an improvement, since nobody is looking at all the hex now “it’s the one ending in ‘4ab’”.

What are your favorite ways to approach this?

I think a maximal period linear feedback shift register might fit well.

However I would still advocate for it over C in scenarios easily covered by TinyGo and TamaGo.

If you want to see go-uniquie highschool debate club, look at Go team attitude to fixing logging, where community proposed multiple ways of solving it, Go team rejected all of them and then made massive navel-gazing post that could be summed up "well, there is multiple proposals THAT MEANS PEOPLE ARE UNSURE ON THE ISSUE so we won't do shit"

...then removed every question related to go logging (that were common in previous ones) in their yearly survey

The maintainers did the right thing by just saying "no."

It's quite literally the opposite. The purpose of a stdlib is standardization, stability, and broad usefulness, not extreme performance. In fact, that can't be its purpose — you can only get max performance if you tune for your exact use case — but how could a stdlib that's by definition generic ever be able to do that?

> but then again there are faster libraries that can give you 3x performance(in case of numeric keys)

Yeah, exactly. If you can constrain your problem domain ("numeric keys only"), you can always squeeze out more performance than a generic algorithm can give you. Completely irrelevant as far as stdlib goes though.

  For regular connection scenarios, nbio's performance is inferior to the standard library due to goroutine affinity, lower buffer reuse rate for individual connections, and variable escape issues.

  gnet and net don't share the same philosophy in network programming. Thus, building network applications with gnet can be significantly different from building them with net, and the philosophies can't be reconciled.
  [...]
  gnet is not designed to displace the Go net, but to create an alternative in the Go ecosystem for building performance-critical network services.

However, the net/http package is a different story. It indeed isn't very performant, though one should be careful to understand that that assessment is on relative terms; net/http still runs circles around some other languages' standard approaches to HTTP servers.

A big part of why net/http is relatively slow is also down to its goals and API surface. It's designed to be easy to use, not especially fast. By comparison, there's fasthttp [1], which lives up to its name, but is much harder to work with properly. The goal of chasing performance at all costs also leads to questionable design decisions, like fiber [2], based on fasthttp, which achieves some of its performance by violating Go's runtime guarantee that strings are immutable. That is a wild choice that the standard library authors would/could never make.

[1]: https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/valyala/fasthttp

[2]: https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/gofiber/fiber/v3

The compatability guarantee is a massive win, so exciting to have a boring language to build on that doesn’t change much but just gradually gets better.

Generally means it'll be going in unless something new comes up which alters people's thinking.

https://github.com/stateless-me/uuidv47