Skip to main content

A Week with Go, Day 4

Day 4 was spent learning about Go's take on object oriented programming, which I found to be a refreshing change from the likes of Java and C#. It's not type-focused; instead of relying on an object's type to know whether or not it offer certain functionality, the object will generally implement an interface. This mindset is not dissimilar to good JavaScript programming where feature detection is preferred over browser sniffing. The code doesn't care what something is (browser/object), just what it can do (functionality/interface).

The word "object" is probably a bit misleading since Go doesn't really have them in the traditional sense. There's no need to write a class definition as in Java, nor to instantiate an object literal like JavaScript. The programmer specifies a set of functions and Go's compiler deduces the relationships.
type Rectangle struct {
    width  float
    height float
}

func (r *Rectangle) Area() float {
    return r.width * r.height
}

func (r *Rectangle) Perimeter() float {
    return r.width*2 + r.height*2
}

func main() {
    r := new(Rectangle)
}
Here the Rectangle "object" is a pointer to a structure consisting of two floats. The Area() function can be applied as a method against any Rectangle to calculate an area, and the Perimeter() function can be applied to calculate the perimeter.

If I were to later specify the interface Shape which dictated an Area() float method and Perimeter() float method, then any Rectangle instances will automatically implement it. The compiler knows a Shape can have its area and perimeter calculated. A Rectangle can have its area and perimeter calculated; therefore, it must be a Shape.
type Shape interface {
    Area() float
    Perimeter() float
}
I appreciate Go's rejection of Java-style type-masturbation and focus on functionality. After all, code is a liability, functionality is an asset. It looks like Go will let me focus more on writing code which provides functionality instead of code that specifies type hierarchies rivaling Jesus' lineage in the book of Matthew.

Feel free to share your impressions of Go in the comments below and come back tomorrow for the final day's entry in the series. If you're interested, here's my shapes code with with Rectangle and Circle objects.

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Writing a Minimal PSR-0 Autoloader

An excellent overview of autoloading in PHP and the PSR-0 standard was written by Hari K T over at PHPMaster.com , and it's definitely worth the read. But maybe you don't like some of the bloated, heavier autoloader offerings provided by various PHP frameworks, or maybe you just like to roll your own solutions. Is it possible to roll your own minimal loader and still be compliant? First, let's look at what PSR-0 mandates, taken directly from the standards document on GitHub : A fully-qualified namespace and class must have the following structure \<Vendor Name>\(<Namespace>\)*<Class Name> Each namespace must have a top-level namespace ("Vendor Name"). Each namespace can have as many sub-namespaces as it wishes. Each namespace separator is converted to a DIRECTORY_SEPARATOR when loading from the file system. Each "_" character in the CLASS NAME is converted to a DIRECTORY_SEPARATOR . The "_" character has no special ...
6 comments
Read more

Safely Identify Dependencies for Chrooting

The most difficult part of setting up a chroot environment is identifying dependencies for the programs you want to copy to the jail. For example, to make cp available, not only do you need to copy its binary from /bin and any shared libraries it depends on, but the dependencies can have their own dependencies too that need to be copied. The internet suggests using ldd to list a binary’s dependencies, but that has its own problems. The man page for ldd warns not to use the script for untrusted programs because it works by setting a special environment variable and then executes the program. What’s a security-conscious systems administrator to do? The ldd man page recommends objdump as a safe alternative. objdump outputs information about an object file, including what shared libraries it links against. It doesn’t identify the dependencies’ dependencies, but it’s still a good start because it doesn’t try to execute the target file. We can overcome the dependencies of depende...
Post a Comment
Read more

What's Wrong with OOP

Proponents of Object Oriented Programming feel the paradigm yields code that is better organized, easier to understand and maintain, and reusable. They view procedural programming code as unwieldy spaghetti and embrace OO-centric design patterns as the "right way" to do things. They argue objects are easier to grasp because they model how we view the world. If the popularity of languages like Java and C# is any indication, they may be right. But after almost 20 years of OOP in the mainstream, there's still a large portion of programmers who resist it. If objects truly model the way people think of things in the real world, then why do people have a hard time understanding and working in OOP? I suspect the problem might be the focus on objects instead of actions. If I may quote from Steve Yegge's Execution in the Kingdom of Nouns : Verbs in Javaland are responsible for all the work, but as they are held in contempt by all, no Verb is ever permitted to wander about ...
9 comments
Read more