Full Width 
Shortcuts 
Sign Up 
Log In 
Articles 
Reading List More from David Crawshaw
jsonfile: a quick hack for tinkering Consider your requirements! A reference implementation A final thought 2024-02-06 The year is 2024. I am on vacation and dream up a couple of toy programs I would like to build. It has been a few years since I built a standalone toy, I have . So instead of actually building any of the toys I think of, I spend my time researching if anything has changed since the last time I did it. Should pick up new tools or techniques?been busy It turns out lots of things have changed! There’s some great stuff out there, including decent quorum-write regional cloud databases now. Oh and the ability to have a fascinating hour-long novel conversation with transistors. But things are still awkward for small fast tinkering. Going back in time, I struggled constantly rewriting the database for the prototype for Tailscale, so I ended up writing my in-memory objects out as . It went far further than I planned. Somewhere in the intervening years I convinced myself it must have been a bad idea even for toys, given all the pain migrating away from it caused. But now that I find myself in an empty text editor wanting to write a little web server, I am not so sure. The migration was painful, and a lot of that pain was born by others (which is unfortunate, I find handing a mess to someone else deeply unpleasant). Much of that pain came from the brittle design of the caching layers on top (also my doing), which came from not moving to an SQL system soon enough.a JSON file I suspect, considering the process retrospect, a great deal of that pain can be avoided by committing to migrating directly to an SQL system the moment you need an index. You can pay down a lot of exploratory design work in a prototype before you need an index, which n is small, full scans are fine. But you don’t make it very far into production before one of your values of n crosses something around a thousand and you long for an index. With a clear exit strategy for avoiding big messes, that means the JSON file as database is still a valid technique for prototyping. And having spent a couple of days remembering what a misery it is to write a unit test for software that uses postgresql (mocks? docker?? for a database program I first ran on a computer with less power than my 2024 wrist watch?) and struggling figuring out how to make my cgo sqlite cross-compile to Windows, I’m firmly back to thinking a JSON file can be a perfectly adequate database for a 200-line toy. Before you jump into this and discover it won’t work, or just as bad, dismiss the small and unscaling as always a bad idea, consider the requirements of your software. Using a JSON file as a database means your software: Programming is the art of tradeoffs. You have to decide what matters and what does not. Some of those decisions need to be made early, usually with imperfect information. You may very well need a powerful SQL DBMS from the moment you start programming, depending on the kind of program you’re writing! An implementation of jsonfile (which Brad called JSONMutexDB, which is cooler because it has an x in it, but requires more typing) can fit in about 70 lines of Go. But there are a couple of lessons we ran into in the early days of Tailscale that can be paid down relatively easily, growing the implementation to 85 lines. (More with comments!) I think it’s worth describing the interesting things we ran into, both in code and here. You can find the implementation of jsonfile here: . The interface is:https://github.com/crawshaw/jsonfile/blob/main/jsonfile.go There is some experience behind this design. In no particular order: One of the early pain points in the transition was figuring out the equivalent of when to , , and . The first version exposed the mutex directly (which was later converted into a RWMutex).BEGINCOMMITROLLBACK There is no advantage to paying this transition cost later. It is easy to box up read/write transactions with a callback. This API does that, and provides a great point to include other safety mechanisms. There are two forms of this. The first is if the write fn fails half-way through, having edited the db object in some way. To avoid this, the implementation first creates an entirely new copy of the DB before applying the edit, so the entire change set can be thrown away on error. Yes, this is inefficient. No, it doesn’t matter. Inefficiency in this design is dominated by the I/O required to write the entire database on every edit. If you are concerned about the duplicate-on-write cost, you are not modeling I/O cost appropriately (which is important, because if I/O matters, switch to SQL). The second is from a full disk. The easy to write a file in Go is to call os.WriteFile, which the first implementation did. But that means: A failure can occur in any of those system calls, resulting in a corrupt DB. So this implementation creates a new file, loads the DB into it, and when that has all succeeded, uses . It is not a panacea, our operating systems do not make all the promises we wish they would about rename. But it is much better than the default.rename(2) A nasty issue I have run into twice is aliasing memory. This involves doing something like: An intermediate version of this code kept the previous database file on write. But there’s an easier and even more robust strategy: never rename the file back to the original. Always create a new file, . On starting, load the most recent file. Then when your data is worth backing up (if ever), have a separate program prune down the number of files and send them somewhere robust.Backups.mydb.json.<timestamp> Not in this implementation but you may want to consider, is removing the risk of a Read function editing memory. You can do that with View* types generated by the tool. It’s neat, but more than quadruples the complexity of JSONFileDB, complicates the build system, and initially isn’t very important in the sorts of programs I write. I have found several memory aliasing bugs in all the code I’ve written on top of a JSON file, but have yet to accidentally write when reading. Still, for large code bases Views are quite pleasant and well-worth considering about the point when a project should move to a real SQL.Constant memory.viewer There is some room for performance improvements too (using cloner instead of unmarshalling a fresh copy of the data for writing), though I must point out again that needing more performance is a good sign it is time to move on to SQLite, or something bigger. It’s a tiny library. Copy and edit as needed. It is an all-new implementation so I will be fixing bugs as I find them. (As a bonus: this was my first time using a Go generic! 👴 It went fine. Parametric polymorphism is ok.) Why go out of my way to devise an inadequate replacement for a database? Most projects fail before they start. They fail because the is too high. Our dreams are big and usually too much, as dreams should be.activation energy But software is not building a house or traveling the world. You can realize a dream with the tools you have on you now, in a few spare hours. This is the great joy of it, you are free from physical and economic constraint. If you start. Be willing to compromise almost everything to start. Doesn’t have a lot of data. Keep it to a few megabytes. The data structure is boring enough not to require indexes. You don’t need something interesting like full-text search. You do plenty of reads, but writes are infrequent. Ideally no more than one every few seconds. Truncating the database file Making multiple system calls to .write(2) Calling .close(2) type JSONFile[Data any] struct { … } func New[Data any](path string) (*JSONFile[Data], error) func Load[Data any](path string) (*JSONFile[Data], error) func (p *JSONFile[Data]) Read(fn func(data *Data)) func (p *JSONFile[Data]) Write(fn func(*Data) error) error list := []int{1, 2, 3} db.Write(func() { db.List = list }) list[0] = 10 // editing the database! Transactions Database corruption through partial writes Memory aliasing Some changes you may want to consider
new year, same plan 2022-12-31 Some months ago, the bill from GCE for hosting this blog jumped from nearly nothing to far too much for what it is, so I moved provider and needed to write a blog post to test it all. I could have figured out why my current provider hiked the price. Presumably I was Holding It Wrong and with just a few grip adjustments I could get the price dropped. But if someone mysteriously starts charging you more money, and there are other people who offer the same service, why would you stay? This has not been a particularly easy year, for a variety of reasons. But here I am at the end of it, and beyond a few painful mistakes that in retrospect I did not have enough information to get right, I made mostly the same decisions I would again. There were a handful of truly wonderful moments. So the plan for 2023 is the same: keep the kids intact, and make programming more fun. There is also the question of Twitter. It took me a few years to develop the skin to handle the generally unpleasant environment. (I can certainly see why almost no old Twitter employees used their product.) The experience recently has degraded, there are still plenty of funny tweets, but far less moments of interesting content. Here is a recent exception, but it is notable because it's the first time in weeks I learned anything from twitter: . I now find more new ideas hiding in HN comments than on Twitter.https://twitter.com/lrocket/status/1608883621980704768 Many people I know have sort-of moved to Mastodon, but it has a pretty horrible UX that is just enough work that I, on the whole, don't enjoy it much. And the fascinating insights don't seem to be there yet, but I'm still reading and waiting. On the writing side, it might be a good idea to lower the standards (and length) of my blog posts to replace writing tweets. But maybe there isn't much value in me writing short notes anyway, are my contributions as fascinating as the ones I used to sift through Twitter to read? Not really. So maybe the answer is to give up the format entirely. That might be something new for 2023. Here is something to think about for the new year: http://www.shoppbs.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcriptNOW140_full.html DAVID BRANCACCIO: There's a little sweet moment, I've got to say, in a very intense book– your latest– in which you're heading out the door and your wife says what are you doing? I think you say– I'm getting– I'm going to buy an envelope. KURT VONNEGUT: Yeah. DAVID BRANCACCIO: What happens then? KURT VONNEGUT: Oh, she says well, you're not a poor man. You know, why don't you go online and buy a hundred envelopes and put them in the closet? And so I pretend not to hear her. And go out to get an envelope because I'm going to have a hell of a good time in the process of buying one envelope. I meet a lot of people. And, see some great looking babes. And a fire engine goes by. And I give them the thumbs up. And, and ask a woman what kind of dog that is. And, and I don't know. The moral of the story is, is we're here on Earth to fart around. And, of course, the computers will do us out of that. And, what the computer people don't realize, or they don't care, is we're dancing animals. You know, we love to move around. And, we're not supposed to dance at all anymore.
log4j: between a rock and a hard place 2021-12-11 What does backwards compatibility mean to me? Backwards compatibility should not have forced log4j to keep LDAP/JNDI URLs The other side of compatibility: being cautious adding features There is more than enough written on the mechanics of and mitigations for the recent . On prevention, this is the most interesting widely-reshared I have seen:severe RCE in log4jinsight This is making the rounds because highly-profitable companies are using infrastructure they do not pay for. That is a worthy topic, but not the most interesting thing in this particular case because it would not clearly have contributed to preventing this bug. It is the second statement in this tweet that is worthy of attention: the long ago, but could not because of the backwards compatibility promises they are held to.maintainers of log4j would have loved to remove this bad feature I am often heard to say that I love backwards compatibility, and that it is underrated. But what exactly do I mean? I don't mean that whenever I upgrade a dependency, I expect zero side effects. If a library function gets two times faster in an upgrade, that is a change in behavior that might break my software! But obviously the exact timings of functions can change between versions. In some extreme cases I need libraries to promise the algorithmic complexity of run time or memory usage, where I am providing extremely large inputs, or need constant-time algorithms to avoid timing attacks. But I don't need that from a logging library. So let me back up and describe what is important. The ideal version of this is I run my package manager's upgrade command, execute the tests, commit the output, and not think about it any more. This means the API/ABI stays similar enough that the compiler won't break, the behavior of the library routines is similar enough the tests will pass, and no other constraints, such as total binary size limits, are exceeded. This is impossible in the general case. The only way to achieve it is to not make any changes at all. When we write down a promise, we leave lots of definitional holes in the promise. E.g. take the (generally excellent) :Go compatibility promise Here "correctly" means according to the Go language specification and the API documentation. The spec and the docs do not cover run time, memory use, or binary size. The next version of Go can be 10x slower and be compatible! But I can assure you if that were the case I would fail my goal of not spending much time upgrading a dependency. But the Go team know this, and work to the spirit of their promise. Very occasionally they break things, for security reasons, and when they do I have to spend time upgrading a dependency for a really good reason: my program needs it.very If I want my program to work correctly I should write tests for all the behaviors I care about. But like all programmers, I am short on hours in the day to do all that needs doing, and never have enough tests. So whenever a change in behavior happens in an upstream library that my tests don't catch but makes it into production, my instinct is to blame upstream. This is of course unfair, the burden for releasing good programs is borne by the person pressing the release button. But it is an expression of a programming social contract that has taken hold: a good software project tries to break downstream as little as possible, and when we do break downstream, we should do our best to make the breakage obvious and easy to fix. No compatibility promise I have seen covers the spirit of minimizing breakage and moving it to the right part of the process. As far as I can tell, engineers aren't taught this in school, and many have never heard the concept articulated. So much of best practice in releasing libraries is learned on the job and not well communicated (yet). Good upstream dependencies are maintained by people who have figured this out the hard way and do their best by their users. As a user, it is extremely hard to know what kind of library you are getting when you first consider a dependency, unless it is a very old and well established project. This is where software goes wrong the most for me. I want, year after year, to come back to a tool and be able to apply the knowledge I acquired the last time I used it, to new things I learn, and build on it. I want to hone my craft by growing a deep understanding of the tools I use. Some new features are additive. If I buy a new for framing, and it has a notch on it my old one didn't that I can use as a shortcut in marking up a beam, its presence does not invalidate my old knowledge. If the new interior notch replaces a marking that was on the outside of the square, then when I go to find my trusty marking I remember from years ago, and it's missing, I need to stop and figure out a new way to solve this old problem. Maybe I will notice the new feature, or, more likely, I'll pull out the tape measure measure I know how to use and find my mark that (slower) way. If someone who knew what they were doing saw me they could correct me! But like programming, I'm usually making a mess with wood alone in a few spare hours on a Saturday.speed square When software "upgrades" invalidate my old knowledge, it makes me a worse programmer. I can spend time getting back to where I was, but that's time I am not spending improving on where I was. To give a concrete example: I will never be an expert at developing for macOS or iOS. I bounce into and out of projects for Apple devices, spending no more than 10% of my hours on their platform. Their APIs change constantly. The buttons in Xcode move so quickly I sometimes wonder if it's happening before my eyes. Try looking up some Swift syntax on stack overflow and you'll find the answers are constantly edited for the latest version of Swift. At this point, I assume every time I come back to macOS/iOS, that I know nothing and I am learning the platform for the first time. Compare the shifting sands of Swift with the stability of awk. I have spent not a tenth of the time learning awk that I have spent relearning Swift, and yet I am about as capable in each language. An awk one-liner I learned 20 years ago still works today! When I see someone use awk to solve a problem, I'm enthusiastic to learn how they did it, because I know that 20 years from now the trick will work. By what backwards compatibility means to me, a project like log4j will break fewer people by removing a feature like the JNDI URLs than by marking an old API method with some mechanical deprecation notice that causes a build process's equivalent of to fail and moving it to a new name. They will in practice, break fewer people removing this feature than they would by slowing down a critical path by 10%, which is the sort of thing that can trivially slip into a release unnoticed.-Wall But the spirit of compatibility promises appears to be poorly understood across our industry (as software updates demonstrate to me every week), and so we lean on the pseudo-legalistic wording of project documentation to write strongly worded emails or snarky tweets any time a project makes work for us (because most projects don't get it, so surely every example of a breakage must be a project that doesn't get it, not a good reason), and upstream maintainers become defensive and overly conservative. The result is now everyone's Java software is broken! We as a profession misunderstand and misuse the concept of backwards compatibility, both upstream and downstream, by focusing on narrow legalistic definitions instead of outcomes. This is a harder, longer topic that maybe I'll find enough clarity to write properly about one day. It should be easy to hack up code and share it! We should also be cautious about adding burdensome features. This particular bug feels impossibly strange to me, because my idea of a logging API is file descriptor number 2 with the system call. None of the bells and whistles are necessary and we should be conservative about our core libraries. Indeed libraries like these are why I have been growing ever-more skeptical of using any depdendencies, and now force myself to read a big chunk of any library before adding it to a project.write But I have also written my share of misfeatures, as much as I would like to forget them. I am thankful my code I don't like has never achieved the success or wide use of log4j, and I cannot fault diligent (and unpaid!) maintainers doing their best under those circumstances. Log4j maintainers have been working sleeplessly on mitigation measures; fixes, docs, CVE, replies to inquiries, etc. Yet nothing is stopping people to bash us, for work we aren't paid for, for a feature we all dislike yet needed to keep due to backward compatibility concerns. It is intended that programs written to the Go 1 specification will continue to compile and run correctly, unchanged, over the lifetime of that specification. I want to not spend much time upgrading a dependency I want any problems caused by the upgrade to be caught early, not in production. I want to be able to build knowledge of the library over a long time, to hone my craft
Software I’m thankful for 2021-11-25 A few of the things that come to mind, this thanksgiving. Most Unix-ish APIs, from files to sockets are a bit of a mess today. Endless poorly documented sockopts, unexpected changes in write semantics across FSs and OSes, good luck trying to figure out . But despite the mess, I can generally wrap my head around open/read/write/close. I can strace a binary and figure out the sequence and decipher what’s going on. Sprinkle in some printfs and state is quickly debuggable. Stack traces are useful!mtimes Enormous effort has been spent on many projects to replace this style of I/O programming, for efficiency or aesthetics, often with an asynchronous bent. I am thankful for this old reliable standby of synchronous open/read/write/close, and hope to see it revived and reinvented throughout my career to be cleaner and simpler. Goroutines are coroutines with compiler/runtime optimized yielding, to make them behave like threads. This breathes new life into the previous technology I’m thankful for: simple blocking I/O. With goroutines it becomes cheap to write large-scale blocking servers without running out of OS resources (like heavy threads, on OSes where they’re heavy, or FDs). It also makes it possible to use blocking interfaces between “threads” within a process without paying the ever-growing price of a context switch in the post- world.spectre This is the first year where the team working on Tailscale has outgrown and eclipsed me to the point where I can be thankful for Tailscale without feeling like I’m thanking myself. Many of the wonderful new features that let me easily wire machines together wherever they are, like userspace networking or MagicDNS, are not my doing. I’m thankful for the product, and the opportunity to work with the best engineering team I’ve ever had the privilege of being part of. Much like open/read/write/close, SQLite is an island of stability in a constantly changing technical landscape. Techniques I learned 10 or 15 years ago using SQLite work today. As a bonus, it does so much more than then: WAL mode for highly-concurrent servers, advanced SQL like window functions, excellent ATTACH semantics. It has done all of this while keeping the number of, in the projects own language, “goofy design” decisions to a minimum and holding true to its mission of being “lite”. I aspire to write such wonderful software. JSON is the worst form of encoding — except for all the others that have been tried. It’s complicated, but not too complicated. It’s not easily read by humans, but it can be read by humans. It is possible to extend it in intuitive ways. When it gets printed onto your terminal, you can figure out what’s going on without going and finding the magic decoder ring of the week. It makes some things that are extremely hard with XML or INI easy, without introducing accidental Turing completeness or turning . Writing software is better for it, and shows the immense effect carefully describing something can do for programming. JSON was everywhere in our JavaScript before the term was defined, the definition let us see it and use it elsewhere.country codes into booleans WireGuard is a great demonstration of why the total complexity of the implementation ends up affecting the UX of the product. In theory I could have been making tunnels between my devices for years with IPSec or TLS, in practice I’d completely given it up until something came along that made it easier. It didn’t make it easier by putting a slick UI over complex technology, it made the underlying technology simpler, so even I could (eventually) figure out the configuration. Most importantly, by not eating my entire complexity budget with its own internals, I could suddenly see it as a building block in larger projects. Complexity makes more things possible, and fewer things possible, simultaneously. WireGuard is a beautiful example of simplicity and I’m thankful for it. Before Go became popular, the fast programming language compilers of the 90s had mostly fallen by the wayside, to be replaced with a bimodal world of interpreters/JITs on one side and creaky slow compilers attempting to produce extremely optimal code on the other. The main Go toolchain found, or rediscovered, a new optimal point in the plane of tradeoffs for programming languages to sit: ahead of time compiled, but with a fast less-than-optimal compiler. It has managed to continue to hold that interesting, unstable equilibrium for a decade now, which is incredibly impressive. (E.g. I personally would love to improve its inliner, but know that it’s nearly impossible to get too far into that project without sacrificing a lot of the compiler’s speed.) I’ve always been cranky about GCC: I find its codebase nearly impossible to modify, it’s slow, the associated ducks I need to line up to make it useful (binutils, libc, etc) blow out the complexity budget on any project I try to start before I get far, and it is associated with GNU, which I used to view as an oddity and now view as a millstone around the neck of an otherwise excellent software project. But these are all the sorts of complaints you only make when using something truly invaluable. GCC is invaluable. I would never have learned to program if a free C compiler hadn’t been available in the 90s, so I owe it my career. To this day, it vies neck-and-neck with LLVM for best performing object code. Without the competition between them, compiler technology would stagnate. And while LLVM now benefits from $10s or $100s of millions a year in Silicon Valley salaries working on it, GCC does it all with far less investment. I’m thankful it keeps on going. I keep trying to quit vim. I keep ending up inside a terminal, inside vim, writing code. Like SQLite, vim is an island of stability over my career. While I wish IDEs were better, I am extremely thankful for tools that work and respect the effort I have taken to learn them, decade after decade. SSH gets me from here to there, and has done since ~1999. There is a lot about ssh that needs reinventing, but I am thankful for stable, reliable tools. It takes a lot of work to keep something like ssh working and secure, and if the maintainers are ever looking for someone to buy them a round they know where to find me. How would I get anything done without all the wonderful information on the public web and search engines to find it? What an amazing achievement. Thanks everyone, for making computers so great. open/read/write/close goroutines Tailscale SQLite JSON WireGuard The speed of the Go compiler GCC vim ssh The public web and search engines
More in programming
The world is waking to the fact that talk therapy is neither the only nor the best way to cure a garden-variety petite depression. Something many people will encounter at some point in their lives. Studies have shown that exercise, for example, is a more effective treatment than talk therapy (and pharmaceuticals!) when dealing with such episodes. But I'm just as interested in the role building competence can have in warding off the demons. And partly because of this meme: I've talked about it before, but I keep coming back to the fact that it's exactly backwards. That signing up for an educational quest into Linux, history, or motorcycle repair actually is an incredibly effective alternative to therapy! At least for men who'd prefer to feel useful over being listened to, which, in my experience, is most of them. This is why I find it so misguided when people who undertake those quests sell their journey short with self-effacing jibes about how much an unattractive nerd it makes them to care about their hobby. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi detailed back in 1990 how peak human happiness arrives exactly in these moments of flow when your competence is stretched by a difficult-but-doable challenge. Don't tell me those endorphins don't also help counter the darkness. But it's just as much about the fact that these pursuits of competence usually offer a great opportunity for community as well that seals the deal. I've found time and again that people are starved for the kind of topic-based connections that, say, learning about Linux offers in spades. You're not just learning, you're learning with others. That is a time-tested antidote to depression: Forming and cultivating meaningful human connections. Yes, doing so over the internet isn't as powerful as doing it in person, but it's still powerful. It still offers community, involvement, and plenty of invitation to carry a meaningful burden. Open source nails this trifecta of motivations to a T. There are endless paths of discovery and mastery available. There are tons of fellow travelers with whom to connect and collaborate. And you'll find an unlimited number of meaningful burdens in maintainerships open for the taking. So next time you see that meme, you should cheer that the talk therapy table is empty. Leave it available for the severe, pathological cases that exercise and the pursuit of competence can't cure. Most people just don't need therapy, they need purpose, they need competence, they need exercise, and they need community.
The excellent-but-defunct blog Programming in the 21st Century defines "puzzle languages" as languages were part of the appeal is in figuring out how to express a program idiomatically, like a puzzle. As examples, he lists Haskell, Erlang, and J. All puzzle languages, the author says, have an "escape" out of the puzzle model that is pragmatic but stigmatized. But many mainstream languages have escape hatches, too. Languages have a lot of properties. One of these properties is the language's capabilities, roughly the set of things you can do in the language. Capability is desirable but comes into conflicts with a lot of other desirable properties, like simplicity or efficiency. In particular, reducing the capability of a language means that all remaining programs share more in common, meaning there's more assumptions the compiler and programmer can make ("tractability"). Assumptions are generally used to reason about correctness, but can also be about things like optimization: J's assumption that everything is an array leads to high-performance "special combinations". Rust is the most famous example of mainstream language that trades capability for tractability.1 Rust has a lot of rules designed to prevent common memory errors, like keeping a reference to deallocated memory or modifying memory while something else is reading it. As a consequence, there's a lot of things that cannot be done in (safe) Rust, like interface with an external C function (as it doesn't have these guarantees). To do this, you need to use unsafe Rust, which lets you do additional things forbidden by safe Rust, such as deference a raw pointer. Everybody tells you not to use unsafe unless you absolutely 100% know what you're doing, and possibly not even then. Sounds like an escape hatch to me! To extrapolate, an escape hatch is a feature (either in the language itself or a particular implementation) that deliberately breaks core assumptions about the language in order to add capabilities. This explains both Rust and most of the so-called "puzzle languages": they need escape hatches because they have very strong conceptual models of the language which leads to lots of assumptions about programs. But plenty of "kitchen sink" mainstream languages have escape hatches, too: Some compilers let C++ code embed inline assembly. Languages built on .NET or the JVM has some sort of interop with C# or Java, and many of those languages make assumptions about programs that C#/Java do not. The SQL language has stored procedures as an escape hatch and vendors create a second escape hatch of user-defined functions. Ruby lets you bypass any form of encapsulation with send. Frameworks have escape hatches, too! React has an entire page on them. (Does eval in interpreted languages count as an escape hatch? It feels different, but it does add a lot of capability. Maybe they don't "break assumptions" in the same way?) The problem with escape hatches In all languages with escape hatches, the rule is "use this as carefully and sparingly as possible", to the point where a messy solution without an escape hatch is preferable to a clean solution with one. Breaking a core assumption is a big deal! If the language is operating as if its still true, it's going to do incorrect things. I recently had this problem in a TLA+ contract. TLA+ is a language for modeling complicated systems, and assumes that the model is a self-contained universe. The client wanted to use the TLA+ to test a real system. The model checker should send commands to a test device and check the next states were the same. This is straightforward to set up with the IOExec escape hatch.2 But the model checker assumed that state exploration was pure and it could skip around the state randomly, meaning it would do things like set x = 10, then skip to set x = 1, then skip back to inc x; assert x == 11. Oops! We eventually found workarounds but it took a lot of clever tricks to pull off. I'll probably write up the technique when I'm less busy with The Book. The other problem with escape hatches is the rest of the language is designed around not having said capabilities, meaning it can't support the feature as well as a language designed for them from the start. Even if your escape hatch code is clean, it might not cleanly integrate with the rest of your code. This is why people complain about unsafe Rust so often. It should be noted though that all languages with automatic memory management are trading capability for tractability, too. If you can't deference pointers, you can't deference null pointers. ↩ From the Community Modules (which come default with the VSCode extension). ↩
I wrote a lot of blog posts over my time at Parse, but they all evaporated after Facebook killed the product. Most of them I didn’t care about (there were, ahem, a lot of status updates and “service reliability announcements”, but I was mad about losing this one in particular, a deceptively casual retrospective of […]
It's only been two months since I discovered the power and joy of this new generation of mini PCs. My journey started out with a Minisforum UM870, which is a lovely machine, but since then, I've come to really appreciate the work of Beelink. In a crowded market for mini PCs, Beelink stands out with their superior build quality, their class-leading cooling and silent operation, and their use of fully Linux-compatible components (the UM870 shipped with a MediaTek bluetooth/wifi card that doesn't work with Linux!). It's the complete package at three super compelling price points. For $289, you can get the EQR5, which runs an 8-core AMD Zen3 5825U that puts out 1723/6419 in Geekbench, and comes with 16GB RAM and 500GB NVMe. I've run Omarchy on it, and it flies. For me, the main drawback was the lack of a DisplayPort, which kept me from using it with an Apple display, and the fact that the SER8 exists. But if you're on a budget, and you're fine with HDMI only, it's a wild bargain. For $499, you can get the SER8. That's the price-to-performance sweet spot in the range. It uses the excellent 8-core AMD Zen4 8745HS that puts out 2595/12985 in Geekbench (~M4 multi-core numbers!), and runs our HEY test suite with 30,000 assertions almost as fast as an M4 Max! At that price, you get 32GB RAM + 1TB NVMe, as well as a DisplayPort, so it works with both the Apple 5K Studio Display and the Apple 6K XDR Display (you just need the right cable). Main drawback is limited wifi/bluetooth range, but Beelink tells me there's a fix on the way for that. For $929, you can get the SER9 HX370. This is the top dog in this form factor. It uses the incredible 12-core AMD Zen5 HX370 that hits 2990/15611 in Geekbench, and runs our HEY test suite faster than any Apple M chip I've ever tested. The built-in graphics are also very capable. Enough to play a ton of games at 1080p. It also sorted the SER8's current wifi/bluetooth range issue. I ran the SER8 as my main computer for a while, but now I'm using the SER9, and I just about never feel like I need anything more. Yes, the Framework Desktop, with its insane AMD Max 395+ chip, is even more bonkers. It almost cuts the HEY test suite time in half(!), but it's also $1,795, and not yet generally available. (But preorders are open for the ballers!). Whichever machine fits your budget, it's frankly incredible that we have this kind of performance and efficiency available at these prices with all of these Beelinks drawing less than 10 watt at idle and no more than 100 watt at peak! So it's no wonder that Beelink has been selling these units like hotcakes since I started talking about them on X as the ideal, cheap Omarchy desktop computers. It's such a symbiotic relationship. There are a ton of programmers who have become Linux curious, and Beelink offers no-brainer options to give that a try at a bargain. I just love when that happens. The perfect intersection of hardware, software, and timing. That's what we got here. It's a Beelink, baby! (And no, before you ask, I don't get any royalties, there's no affiliate link, and I don't own any shares in Beelink. I just love discovering great technology and seeing people start their Linux journey with an awesome, affordable computer!)
“One of the comments that sparked this article,” our founder Paul McMahon told me, “was someone saying, ‘I don’t really want to do networking because it seems kind of sleazy. I’m not that kind of person.’” I guess that’s the key misconception people have when they hear ‘networking.’ They think it’s like some used car salesman kind of approach where you have to go and get something out of the person. That’s a serious error, according to Paul, and it worries him that so many developers share that mindset. Instead, Paul considers networking a mix of making new friends, growing a community, and enjoying serendipitous connections that might not bear fruit until years later, but which could prove to be make-or-break career moments. It’s something that you don’t get quick results on and that doesn’t make a difference at all until it does. And it’s just because of the one connection you happen to make at an event you went to once, this rainy Tuesday night when you didn’t really feel like going, but told yourself you have to go—and that can make all the difference. As Paul has previously shared, he can attribute much of his own career success—and, interestingly enough, his peace of mind—to the huge amount of networking he’s done over the years. This is despite the fact that Paul is, in his own words, “not such a talkative person when it comes to small talk or whatever.” Recently I sat down with Paul to discuss exactly how developers are networking “wrong,” and how they can get it right instead. In our conversation, we covered: What networking really is, and why you need to start ASAP Paul’s top tip for anyone who wants to network Advice for networking as an introvert Online vs offline networking—which is more effective? And how to network in Japan, even when you don’t speak Japanese What is networking, really, and why should you start now? “Sometimes,” Paul explained, “people think of hiring fairs and various exhibitions as the way to network, but that’s not networking to me. It’s purely transactional. Job seekers are focused on getting interviews, recruiters on making hires. There’s no chance to make friends or help people outside of your defined role.” Networking is getting to know other people, understanding how maybe you can help them and how they can help you. And sometime down the road, maybe something comes out of it, maybe it doesn’t, but it’s just expanding your connections to people. One reason developers often avoid or delay networking is that, at its core, networking is a long game. Dramatic impacts on your business or career are possible—even probable—but they don’t come to fruition immediately. “A very specific example would be TokyoDev,” said Paul. “One of our initial clients that posted to the list came through networking.” Sounds like a straightforward result? It’s a bit more complicated than that. “There was a Belgian guy, Peter, whom I had known through the Ruby and tech community in Japan for a while,” Paul explained. “We knew each other, and Peter had met another Canadian guy, Jack, who [was] looking to hire a Ruby developer. “So Peter knew about me and TokyoDev and introduced me to Jack, and that was the founder of Degica, who became one of our first clients. . . . And that just happened because I had known Peter through attending events over the years.” Another example is how Paul’s connection to the Ruby community helped him launch Doorkeeper. His participation in Ruby events played a critical role in helping the product succeed, but only because he’d already volunteered at them for years. “Because I knew those people,” he said, “they wanted to support me, and I guess they also saw that I was genuine about this stuff, and I wasn’t participating in these events with some big plan about, ‘If I do this, then they’re going to use my system,’ or whatever. Again, it was people helping each other out.” These delayed and indirect impacts are why Paul thinks you should start networking right now. “You need to do it in advance of when you actually need it,” he said. “People say they’re looking for a job, and they’re told ‘You could network!’ Yeah, that could potentially help, but it’s almost too late.” You should have been networking a couple years ago when you didn’t need to be doing it, because then you’ve already built up the relationships. You can have this karma you’re building over time. . . . Networking has given me a lot of wealth. I don’t mean so much in money per se, but more it’s given me a safety net. “Now I’m confident,” he said, “that if tomorrow TokyoDev disappeared, I could easily find something just through my connections. I don’t think I’ll, at least in Japan, ever have to apply for a job again.” “I think my success with networking is something that anyone can replicate,” Paul went on, “provided they put in the time. I don’t consider myself to be especially skilled in networking, it’s just that I’ve spent over a decade making connections with people.” How to network (the non-sleazy way) Paul has a fair amount of advice for those who want to network in an effective, yet genuine fashion. His first and most important tip: Be interested in other people. Asking questions rather than delivering your own talking points is Paul’s number one method for forging connections. It also helps avoid those “used car salesman” vibes. “ That’s why, at TokyoDev,” Paul explained, “we typically bar recruiters from attending our developer events. Because there are these kinds of people who are just going around wanting to get business cards from everyone, wanting to get their contact information, wanting to then sell them on something later. It’s quite obvious that they’re like that, and that leads to a bad environment, [if] someone’s trying to sell you on something.” Networking for introverts The other reason Paul likes asking questions is that it helps him to network as an introvert. “That’s actually one of the things that makes networking easier for someone who isn’t naturally so talkative. . . . When you meet new people, there are some standard questions you can ask them, and it’s like a blank slate where you’re filling in the details about this person.” He explained further that going to events and being social can be fun for him, but he doesn’t exactly find it relaxing. “When it comes to talking about something I’m really interested in, I can do it, but I stumble in these social situations. Despite that, I think I have been pretty successful when it comes to networking.” “What has worked well for me,” he went on, “has been putting myself in those situations that require me to do some networking, like going to an event.” Even if you aren’t that proactive, you’re going to meet a couple of people there. You’re making more connections than you would if you stayed home and played video games. The more often you do it, the easier it gets, and not just because of practice: there’s a cumulative effect to making connections. “Say you’re going to an event, and maybe last time you met a couple of people, you could just say ‘Hi’ to those people again. And maybe they are talking with someone else they can introduce you to.” Or, you can be the one making the introductions. “What has also worked well for me, is that I like to introduce other people,” Paul said. It’s always a great feeling when I’m talking to someone at an event, and I hear about what they’re doing or what they’re wanting to do, and then I can introduce someone else who maybe matches that. “And it’s also good for me, then I can just be kind of passive there,” Paul joked. “I don’t have to be out there myself so much, if they’re talking to each other.” His last piece of advice for introverts is somewhat counterintuitive. “Paradoxically,” he told me, “it helps if you’re in some sort of leadership position.” If you’re an introvert, my advice would be one, just do it, but then also look for opportunities for helping in some more formal capacity, whether it’s organizing an event yourself, volunteering at an event . . . [or] making presentations. “Like for me, when I’ve organized a Tokyo Rubyist Meetup,” Paul said, “[then] naturally as the organizer there people come to talk to me and ask me questions. . . . And it’s been similar when I’ve presented at an event, because then people have something that they know that you know something about, and maybe they want to know more about it, and so then they can ask you more questions and lead the conversation that way.” Offline vs online networking When it comes to offline vs online networking, Paul prefers offline. In-person events are great for networking because they create serendipity. You meet people through events you wouldn’t meet otherwise just because you’re in the same physical space as them. Those time and space constraints add pressure to make conversation—in a good way. “It’s natural when you are meeting someone, you ask about what they’re doing, and you make that small connection there. Then, after seeing them at multiple different events, you get a bit of a stronger connection to them.” “Physical events are [also] much more constrained in the number of people, so it’s easier to help people,” he added. “Like with TokyoDev, I can’t help every single person online there, but if someone meets me at the event [and is] asking for advice or something like that, of course I’ve got to answer them. And I have more time for them there, because we’re in the same place at the same time.” As humans, we’re more likely to help other people we have met in person, I think just because that’s how our brains work. That being said, Paul’s also found success with online networking. For example, several TokyoDev contributors—myself included—started working with Paul after interacting with him online. I commented on TokyoDev’s Dungeons and Dragons article, which led to Paul checking my profile and asking to chat about my experience. Scott, our community moderator and editor, joined TokyoDev in a paid position after being active on the TokyoDev Discord. Michelle was also active on the Discord, and Paul initially asked her to write an article for TokyoDev on being a woman software engineer in Japan, before later bringing her onto the team. Key to these results was that they involved no stereotypical “networking” strategies on either side: we all connected simply by playing a role in a shared, online community. Consistent interactions with others, particularly over a longer period of time, builds mutual trust and understanding. Your online presence can help with offline networking. As TokyoDev became bigger and more people knew about me through my blog, it became a lot easier to network with people at events because they’re like, ‘Hey, you’re Paul from TokyoDev. I like that site.’ “It just leads to more opportunities,” he continued. “If you’ve interacted with someone before online, and then you meet them offline, you already do have a bit of a relationship with them, so you’re more likely to have a place to start the conversation. [And] if you’re someone who is struggling with doing in-person networking, the more you can produce or put out there [online], the more opportunities that can lead to.” Networking in Japanese While there are a number of events throughout Japan that are primarily in English, for best networking results, developers should take advantage of Japanese events as well—even if your Japanese isn’t that good. In 2010, Paul created the Tokyo Rubyist Meetup, with the intention of bringing together Japanese and international developers. To ensure it succeeded, he knew he needed more connections to the Japanese development community. “So I started attending a lot of Japanese developer events where I was the only non-Japanese person there,” said Paul. “I didn’t have such great Japanese skills. I couldn’t understand all the presentations. But it still gave me a chance to make lots of connections, both with people who would later present at [Tokyo Rubyist Meetup], but also with other Japanese developers whom I would work with either on my own products or also on other client projects.” I think it helped being kind of a visible minority. People were curious about me, about why I was attending these events. Their curiosity not only helped him network, but also gave him a helping hand when it came to Japanese conversation. “It’s a lot easier for me in Japanese to be asked questions and answer them,” he admitted. But Paul wasn’t just attending those seminars and events in a passive manner. He soon started delivering presentations himself, usually as part of Lightning Talks—again, despite his relatively low level of Japanese. “It doesn’t matter if you do a bad job of it,” he said. Japanese people I think are really receptive to people trying to speak in Japanese and making an effort. I think they’re happy to have someone who isn’t Japanese present, even if they don’t do a great job. He also quickly learned that the most important networking doesn’t take place at the meetup itself. “At least in the past,” he explained, “it was really split . . . [there’s the] seminar time where everyone goes and watches someone present. Everyone’s pretty passive there and there isn’t much conversation going on between attendees. “Then afterwards—and maybe less than half of the people attend—but they go to a restaurant and have drinks after the event. And that’s where all the real socialization happens, and so that’s where I was able to really make the most connections.” That said, Paul noted that the actual “drinking” part of the process has noticeably diminished. “Drinking culture in Japan is changing a lot,” he told me. “I noticed that even when hosting the Tokyo Rubyist Meetup. When we were first hosting it, we [had] an average of 2.5 beers per participant. And more recently, the average is one or less per participant there. “I think there is not so much of an expectation for people to drink a lot. Young Japanese people don’t drink at the same rate, so don’t feel like you actually have to get drunk at these events. You probably shouldn’t,” he added with a laugh. What you should do is be persistent, and patient. It took Paul about a year of very regularly attending events before he felt he was treated as a member of the community. “Literally I was attending more than the typical Japanese person,” he said. “At the peak, there were a couple events per week.” His hard work paid off, though. “I think one thing about Japanese culture,” he said, “is that it’s really group based.” Initially, as foreigners, we see ourselves in the foreign group versus the Japanese group, and there’s kind of a barrier there. But if you can find some other connection, like in my case Ruby, then with these developers I became part of the “Ruby developer group,” and then I felt much more accepted. Eventually he experienced another benefit. “I think it was after a year of volunteering, maybe two years. . . . RubyKaigi, the biggest Ruby conference in Japan and one of the biggest developer conferences in Japan [in general], used Doorkeeper, the event registration system [I created], to manage their event. “That was a big win for us because it showed that we were a serious system to lots of people there. It exposed us to lots of potential users and was one of the things that I think led to us, for a time, being the most popular event registration system among the tech community in Japan.” Based on his experiences, Paul would urge more developers to try attending Japanese dev events. “Because I think a lot of non-Japanese people are still too intimidated to go to these events, even if they have better Japanese ability than I did. “If you look at most of the Japanese developer events happening now, I think the participants are almost exclusively Japanese, but still, that doesn’t need to be the case.” Takeaways What Paul hopes other developers will take away from this article is that networking shouldn’t feel sleazy. Instead, good networking looks like: Being interested in other people. Asking them questions is the easiest way to start a conversation and make a genuine connection. Occasionally just making yourself go to that in-person event. Serendipity can’t happen if you don’t create opportunities for it. Introducing people to each other—it’s a fast and stress-free way to make more connections. Volunteering for events or organizing your own. Supporting offline events with a solid online presence as well. Not being afraid to attend Japanese events, even if your Japanese isn’t good. Above all, Paul stressed, don’t overcomplicate what networking is at its core. Really what networking comes down to is learning about what other people are doing, and how you can help them or how they can help you. Whether you’re online, offline, or doing it in Japanese, that mindset can turn networking from an awkward, sleazy-feeling experience into something you actually enjoy—even on a rainy Tuesday night.
