Go Optimization Guide

Checking out the first example—object pools—I was initially blown away that this is not only possible but it produces no warnings of any kind:

    pool := sync.Pool{
        New: func() any { return 42 }
    }

    a := pool.Get()

    pool.Put("hello")
    pool.Put(struct{}{})

    b := pool.Get()
    c := pool.Get()
    d := pool.Get()

    fmt.Println(a, b, c, d)

Of course, the answer is that this API existed before generics so it just takes and returns `any` (née `interface{}`). It just feels as though golang might be strongly typed in principle, but in practice there are APIs left and rigth that escape out of the type system and lose all of the actual benefits of having it in the first place.

Is a type system all that helpful if you have to keep turning it off any time you want to do something even slightly interesting?

Also I can't help but notice that there's no API to reset values to some initialized default. Shouldn't there be some sort of (perhaps optional) `Clear` callback that resets values back to a sane default, rather than forcing every caller to remember to do so themselves?

You never programmed in Go, I assume? Then you have to understand that the type of `pool.Get()` is `any`, the wildcard type in Go. It is a type, and if you want the underlying value, you have to get it out by asserting the correct type. This cannot be solved with generics. There's no way in Java, Rust or C++ to express this either, unless it is a pool for a single type, in which case Go generics indeed could handle that as well. But since Go is backwards compatible, this particular construct has to stay.

> Also I can't help but notice that there's no API to reset values to some initialized default.

That's what the New function does, isn't it?

BTW, the code you posted isn't syntactically correct. It needs a comma on the second line.

> That's what the New function does, isn't it?

But that's only run when the pool needs to allocate more space. What GP seems to expect is that sync.Pool() would always return a zeroed structure, just as Golang allocation does.

I think Golang's implementation does make sense, as sync.Pool() is clearly an optimization you use when performance is an issue; and in that case you almost certainly want to only initialize parts of the struct that are needed. But I can see why it would be surprising.

> [any] is a type

It's typed the way Python is typed, not the way Rust or C are typed; so loses the "if it compiles there's a good chance it's correct" property that people want from statically typed languages.

I don't use sync.Pool, but it does seem like now that we have generics, having a typed pool would be better.

> What GP seems to expect is that sync.Pool() would always return a zeroed structure

Might be, but that's a design decision that has nothing to do with type or generics, isn't it? You seem to refer to a function to drain the pool, which is not needed, and frankly, rather unusual.

> It's typed the way Python is typed

Not in the slightest.

> "if it compiles there's a good chance it's correct"

If you want to compare it to something, it's more like Rust's unwrap(), which will panic if you apply it to the wrong result.

> Not in the slightest.

You know, it's this kind of comment on USENET forums which prompted the creation of StackOverflow. It's not curious and adds nothing to the discussion.

I like Go and use it extensively; and I like having the option to fall back to the `any` type. But it's simply a fact that using the `any` type means that certain properties of the program can't be checked at compile time, in the same way that Python isn't able to check certain properties of the program at compile time.

> If you want to compare it to something, it's more like Rust's unwrap(), which will panic if you apply it to the wrong result.

Rust's unwrap() is used when a type can have one of exactly two underlying types (which is why no type is specified). In this case, getting back an `any` type means the underlying type could literally be anything -- as demonstrated by the example, where they put an integer, a string, and an empty struct into the pool. That's almost certainly not what you wanted, but the compiler won't prevent you from doing it.

Sorry, but comparing Python's total absence of typing to extracting a value from any is quite weird.

> certain properties of the program can't be checked at compile time

Neither can you check if a number is positive or negative, or if a string is empty or not at compile time, but that doesn't make Go similar to COBOL or Forth. `var v any` declares v to be of the type any, not of any arbitrary type, which is what Python does. Writing `v + 1` gives a compiler error, unlike Python, which may or may not turn it into a runtime error. It is rather different, and especially so when you look at interfacing. Even though you may declare a variable to be an integer in Python, there is no guarantee that it actually is, whereas in Go that is the case, which has significant implications for how you handle e.g. json.

> the compiler won't prevent you from doing it.

It will prevent you from using e.g. an array of strings as if it were an array ints. Python does not. They are quite different.

> You know, it's this kind of comment on USENET forums which prompted the creation of StackOverflow. It's not curious and adds nothing to the discussion.

Ffs.