title: "Progress and the lack thereof" date: 2022-09-18T17:44:00-05:00 aliases:

• "/posts/progress_and_the_lack_thereof" draft: false

I revisited some of my oldest coding projects this week. It started as an effort to clean up old messes that really don't reflect my strengths. But it was fun and nostalgic, and it also helped me appreciate how much has changed.

Like many others, my oldest Python projects were loose Python files that had to be called directly. Learning to use main functions and write modules with entrypoints always comes later.

My oldest Python project with a build process used setup.py and targeted sdist and bdist formats. Luckily that's a bunch of technical jargon that has been thrown out the window in recent years.

pyproject.toml has been a long time coming and I welcome it. But I'm afraid it took too long to get here. All the most searchable documentation for the file's specification belongs to the poetry project, which has plenty of incompatible extensions to the file.

I think the continued need for setup.cfg hampered interest in migration. But as I coaxed this project into a pyproject.toml-based system, I realized that setuptools finally merged support for PEP 621 earlier this year. Goodbye, setup.cfg!

I'm happy with where Python packaging landed. It's a shame it took this long. Or maybe it didn't take time, just the secession of the packaging infrastructure team from the rest of the steering council...

Another familiar story: The biggest difference between my old and new projects is type hints.

I used to type guard all passed-in arguments as a debugging tool. (If int(myint) fails then clearly myint isn't what I want it to be). This made re-using code a pain in the ass at the best of times.

mypy does everything I need without adding brittle code. And it's only gotten better over the years. Projects stopped using type stubs and started annotating their own code.

I think that typing has also encouraged people to implement their own domain- specific modules instead of becoming dependent on feature-creeped libraries. (npm, anyone?) Type stubs were a hassle and it was much more feasible to fork a module, kill everything you don't need, and add the three lines of annotations that mypy needed to be happy.

I think that typing also helped people realize that if code is hard to annotate, it probably isn't good code. Clever programming is and has never been a good thing. A function does not need to have 11 optional arguments that fully customize the returned data. Meta-classes have never been a good idea. Sometimes we need a compiler to remind us of that. Unfortunately Python doesn't have a compiler so we have to make do with static analysis.

Sadly a large population is convinced that typing is bad, and they've taken over the show for all intents and purposes. Seeing as the steering keeps getting in the way.

I came into the Golang community right around the time that modules became a thing. Several of my oldest projects were not setup for modules, which honestly surprised me. I don't remember when I started using them. It must have been a truly seamless transition.

That seems all the more likely given how easy it was to update my oldest projects to use modules.

With that said, I know that I use modules in a slightly unconventional way. I purposefully do not commit go.sum. The intention behind that file is to make build reproducible. Which is a fine goal and all, but it's not my goal. Deleting go.sum and beginning every build with go get -u ensures that I am always keeping up-to-date with upstream deprecations and minor version updates.

In many ways I consider Go to be the successor of Python. They both have expressive syntax, and Go's compiler does a great job of type inference. I've rewritten a few scripts by now and found it a pretty simple process.

There is one particular hiccup between the two. And it bridges two more things that have changed about my projects over the years.

In some of my earliest Python projects, I struggled with module structure. I was fascinated by the idea of managing multiple clients, servers, and higher- level utility libraries in a single repo. With common libraries to de-duplicate implementations.

Over time, I learned that this was a bad idea. It's more difficult to make packaging work correctly. The imports become messy and code keeps moving between modules, leading to even messier imports.

In Python, flat is always better.

When I began using Go, I tried to program in the exact same paradigm. But I kept finding some difficulty in that pattern, because Go does not want a module to be executable and importable.

This requires some context: In Go, a main package is something that can be compiled and executed. And naturally all projects begin with a main package. My primary workflow is to make changes to a codebase, insert debug logging statements, and execute the module on test data. Rinse and repeat until the changed code passes the visual unit test. But if a module contains a main package, it cannot be used in other modules. So at a late stage of development I have a hard choice: rewrite the module to use an importable package, or move the importable code elsewhere.

My solution is creating a common submodule and moving all useful functionality into that. The root module remains a main package and wraps the common library.

I've noticed that the more common practice is the reverse of mine: create a cmd submodule that contains one or more main packages. The advantages are that imports are shorter (i.e. don't need to include /common in the package path and don't need to provide a local name for that import) and that a repo can host multiple executables. While I concede the former, I don't agree with the latter. The traditional Unix method is to symlink a core binary to multiple names, and check the name that was called at runtime to decide which code path should be followed.

This ended up being more of a rant than a reflection, but after sitting on a draft for a few days, I've decided to publish as-is.