About declarative frameworks and tools

This post is a reply to “just use Terraform” recommendation I’ve just seen. I hope more people will benefit from my perspective if it’s posted here. There is plenty of marketing behind most of the tools I mention here. It’s all rosy, see the “Life before Puppet” video. Let’s balance this marketing bullshit a bit.

Think twice before using declarative framework/tool

Terraform, CloudFormation, Puppet, Chef as any other declarative frameworks/tools take control away from you. They work fine for “hello world” examples. Then there is life where you need something these frameworks did not anticipate and you are sorry you have not coded everything yourself from the start. Now you are stuck with these tools and you will be paying for it in your time and money. Working around limitations of such tools is a pain.

I am using CloudFormation and have used Puppet and Chef in the past. These tools do have their place. In my opinion it’s a very limited set of scenarios. Terraform, CloudFormation, Puppet and Chef are used much more widely than they should be.

These tools have some value but too often people neglect the cost which in many cases outweighs the value. Most of the cost comes from inflexibility. Terraform and CloudFormation are so limited that people frequently use another tool for generating these. That adds another bit to the cost.

I’m hearing frequently from a friend (sorry, can’t name him) how much they suffer from Terraform’s inflexibility. Inflexibility can not be fixed because it’s a declarative framework. Unfortunately they are so invested in Terraform that they will continue to spend hundreds of hours to fight it. Chef is causing trouble there too, community Cookbooks proved to be a mismatch for the needs and sanity of the engineers there.

… and there is this gem

A key component of every successful Puppet implementation is access to a knowledgeable support team

That’s from https://puppet.com/support-services/customer-support/support-plans

Are you sure you want to use Puppet? Apparently you can’t do it well without their support… Just saying…

Is one of these tools right for you?

Regular considerations for choosing a tool apply. See my older post “Prove your tool is the right choice“.

Expected replies and my replies to those

You don’t get it.

OK

You don’t understand these tools.

OK

You are not using these tools right / as intended.

OK

Are you crazy? You want to code everything yourself?

Let’s take it to the extreme: no new code should be written. No libraries, no frameworks. Because everything already exists. Sounds about right.

People smarter than you have figured it all out, use their tools

Smarter people don’t always produce better solutions or solutions that fit your use case. Most of the time smart people will produce smart solutions… and then there are people that don’t usually think in graphs and are really puzzled when debugging Puppet cyclic dependency errors for example.

Most of the code you need is already written, don’t waste time and money, use it! Community Cookbooks and modules are great!

This is marketing bullshit. Don’t buy it! It’s often more expensive to adopt a code that does not meet your exact needs and is much more complex that you need (because it should support multiple platforms and use cases) than to write your own. I have seen suffering followed by usage of community Cookbooks/modules followed by in-house rewrite or fork.

Don’t you care about the next guy? Work with standard tools!

Let’s do some math. Team of two works for a year. They are (very modest estimation) 10% more productive because they have coded whatever they needed and were not fighting with the tools. Even when wrongfully assuming that custom solution is harder to understand for the 3rd guy that joined the team after one year, how much is it harder? Is it more than 300 hours harder?

Update following responses on Reddit

2017-04-28

2 totally different toolsets – infrastructure orchestration (Terraform, Cloudformation), and Configuration Management (Puppet, Chef)… — (/u/absdevops)

Yes. What is common to all these tools is declarative style and their usage: these tools are typically run using CLI.

All these tools have three axes that I consider:

  1. “Input” axis: What’s the input of these tools?
    1. Configuration format
    2. Half-baked programming language that was probably never indented to be a programming language
    3. Real programming language
  2. “Calling” axis: framework vs library (typical usage)
  3. “TCO” axis: TCO vs other solutions, especially vs the other solution that is always available – code the subset of the functionality that you need yourself

I’d like to make sure that it’s clear that the tools mentioned in this article have different positions on the 3 axes and are not equal in the value they provide you in your specific situation.

The main point of the article is that while these tools differ on axes 1 and 3, they are all limiting because conceptually, they are all frameworks. You pass your execution into the tool and it does a lot. Here is where you loose your flexibility as opposed to using a library. You have relatively little control of what happens inside the tool.

I must strongly disagree with Terraform being put in the list – its a great base tool with limitations that can be worked around. — (/u/absdevops)

I don’t want to work around limitations. It seems to be the norm for these tools. I’d rather have a library that misses parts that I’d code myself. Working around limitations in my opinion is generally much worse than missing functionality (depends on specific circumstances of course).

Regarding inflexibility – it’s probably the most flexible tool of the bunch — (/u/absdevops)

Please note we are still comparing between the tools that all use limiting paradigm: frameworks

I will also duel anyone to the death for preference of Cloudformation syntax to Terraform — (/u/absdevops)

We are talking about the “Input” axis I mentioned above. Yes, Terraform syntax apart from being more aesthetically pleasing is somewhat closer to “Half-baked programming language that was probably never indented to be a programming language” while CloudFormation is somewhat closer to “Configuration format”.

I totally disagree with points made about having to generate Terraform manifests. … generate what you need specifically, and hand it off to Terraform, much like making an API call to a library. — /u/SlinkyAvenger

There is a huge difference in the amount of work done by typical API call and what these tools do once you call them. With more granular API calls you decide if and when you do specific calls and what do you do in between the calls – it’s much more flexible.

I’m also a big proponent of Puppet — /u/SlinkyAvenger

One of the low value tools from my perspective. I’ll explain. On the “Input” axis, it’s half-baked programming language. Better than configuration file but still loses to Chef for example. On the “TCO” access, I really think that Puppet and Chef are not good alternatives to custom scripts in most cases. Scripts by the way also win on the “Calling” axis, which means flexibility.

I’d really like to hear what you’re honestly going back to puppet support for. — /u/neoghostz

We don’t. When we suffered while working with Puppet, we knew that support will not solve our problems. Some crappy community modules can not be solved by support. Breakage on modules versions updates – same. Librarian, more complexity on top of complexity – same. The above quote about support (“A key component of every successful Puppet implementation is access to a knowledgeable support team”) was just to highlight that guys at Puppet think people can’t use it without support. This is just a humorous point and not really important.

What is the point of this article? It basically dumps on Terraform, CF, Puppet, Chef, etc., but offers no actual criticism (other than a vague ‘it takes away control’ statement) or, perhaps more importantly, alternatives. — /u/cryonine

The point is that all these tools would have been better if they would be implemented as libraries on top of real programming languages, where you call the parts that you need instead of one “do everything” call.

With the exception of Chef, these tools use either configuration files as input or configuration-file-almost-a-programming-language format. It’s always the same path:

  1. We need small limited DSL it’s so academically beautiful, we can prove theorems about this.
  2. Oh wait, there are real world scenarios where it’s not enough, damn these complaining engineers.
  3. Let’s add stdlib
  4. Let’s add proper loops
  5. Now we have a half-baked programming language.

Elaborating on taking control away from you. You get convoluted things like this:

Alternatives

For Puppet and Chef, I have not seen a single system where my estimated TCO of these tools would be better than a bunch of idempotent modular bash scripts which I use. It did not take much time to write these. Some Python is used for configuration generation (json / jinja templates + environment data).

With Cloudformation and Terraform it’s not that simple. I’m mostly amazed that nobody does libraries which would just provide declarative primitives, not frameworks where you feed everything you need via one call. I am working on one but it is really strange for me that I haven’t heard already about such library for Python or Ruby.

Terraform … vastly superior to any other alternate out there — /u/cryonine

Not sure I agree 100% because it depends on situation but I can imagine many situations where it’s correct. The important thing here is that I think that all current alternatives are not so good.

How is it wrongful to assume that a custom solution is harder to understand? That’s completely accurate. — /u/cryonine

Custom solution is simpler. Do you really need documentation for 19 lines of bash code that installs Nginx and another 29 that do a restart that handles leaking file descriptors? You will definitely need documentation of 2000+ lines of Chef cookbook or Puppet module that install Nginx and … oh wait… how do I reload Nginx and then conditionally (if enough file descriptors leaked) restart it? Time to dive in 🙂

I do imagine how custom solution can be complicated (read harder to maintain and higher TCO) if done by unprofessional people. In some cases it might be better for them to use a framework. On the other hand, they might stuck when trying to do something advanced with the framework. Really depends on the situation.

While “use standard tools” generally sounds right, I have seen too much convoluted solutions using “standard tools” because of the inflexibility. People were trying to work around the limitations. Comparing top-down execution of simple script to workarounds for these tools, it’s much simpler to wrap your head around the scripts. I have recently passed one of my clients to the next guy. I have asked him how he is doing and he told me that he was happy to have simple custom solution over complex frameworks. TCO has many components. Choosing “standard tools” does not always outweigh other aspects.

 


Have a nice day and a productive life!

NGS unique features – improving NodeJS require()

Background: what is NGS?

NGS, the Next Generation Shell is a (work in progress) shell and a programming language built ground up for systems engineering tasks. You can think of it as bash that’s designed today: sane syntax, data structures, functional programming, extensibility, cloud in mind, declarative primitives.

What’s good in NodeJS’ require()

I like most of how require() works in JavaScript. I’m not talking in this post about npm, just NodeJS require() function. require() does not pollute your namespace, you just get a reference, it’s simple to use and easy to reason about.

const a = require('cool-aws-wrapper');
// Can not be done easily with AWS SDK:
a.deleteRoute53Record('testing25.example.com');

What’s there to improve in require() ?

NodeJS modules are usually fall into one of the categories:

  1. Class definition / big library that manages it’s own namespace. These usually end with module.exports = MyClass. No problem here.
  2. Group of functions or classes. These usually end with module.exports = { func1, func2, func3, ...} lists (ES6 syntax, otherwise written as module.exports =  { func1: func1, ... } ) which I think are cumbersome.

How require() and modules look in NGS?

Note that require() in NGS is work in progress and it doesn’t have much of the functionality that NodeJS provides. I just started with things that bothered me the most.

Consistent with other places in NGS, require() returns the last evaluated expression. NodeJS for example returns module.exports which you must explicitly set as the result of require().

I think of modules primary as a namespaces. Creating a namespace in NGS has a syntax: ns { ... } .

Combining require() behaviour of returning last evaluated expression and namespace syntax, typical NGS module consists of single top level expression which evaluates to a namespace. The whole module file can look like this:

ns {

  global init

  type Vpc
  type Subnet

  F init(v:Vpc) {
    ...
  }

  F _helper_func(s:Str) { ... }

  MY_CONST = 42

  F ok() {
    echo("OK")
  }

}

Let’s ignore the global for now, it’s about how methods and types’ instances creation are implemented in NGS. Anything defined inside the ns { ... } is exposed as namespace member so usage of the above module could look like this:

{
  m = require('mymodule.ngs')
  vpc = m::Vpc()
  echo(m::MY_CONST)
  m::ok()
}

As you probably guessed, the :: operator is the namespace member access operator.

There is no need to explicitly state what module/namespace exports. That’s the improvement over NodeJS’ require().

How ns works and more options for the curios

ns { … } returns a Hash

As stolen from NodeJS, the namespace syntax (ns { ... }) returns a Hash. In NodeJS, require() typically returns JavaScript Object which is close enough for the purpose of this post.

About :: operator

The namespace member access operator :: is actually a Hash key access operator. It is helpful because the regular syntax for accessing members is not always a good fit for namespaces. The regular member access syntax is dot (.) but the dot syntax is also a function call: myobj.field – is a field/key/attribute access but myobj.func() is equivalent to func(myobj). For example, m::ok() will call the ok function defined in the module, m.ok() will call the function ok in current lexical environment with m as parameter.

As a bonus, since :: is an operator, it is implemented as function call. This means you can define how :: works with types that you define and modify how :: works with existing types.

ns { … } syntax implementation

For simplicity of implementation and absence of obvious reasons against, ns { ... } syntax is just a syntactic sugar for defining anonymous function without parameters and calling it immediately. The though behind this decision was simple: “I need to implement namespaces. Let’s see where I have them already. Oh, namespaces are already implemented in functions. This is so convenient, I can use this mechanism with minimal effort”.

How ns knows what to return?

ns is mostly a syntactic hack:

  1. Inside the ns body, the first statement, before any use-supplied statements is _exports = {} which sets the local variable _exports to an empty Hash.
  2. Any assignment and function definition also set _exports["something"]. MY_CONST = 42 becomes MY_CONST = 42;  _exports["MY_CONST"] = MY_CONST;
  3. Exception to the rule above are variables and functions with names starting with underscore (_). They are not automatically added to _exports. This for example is why _exports itself is not exported.
  4. Last statement, after all user-supplied statements is _exports.

The behavior I just described looks like sane defaults to me. As we all know, the life is usually more complex than hello world examples and customizations are need. Here are two ways to customize the resulting namespace.

  1. return your_expr – since ns is just a function, you can use return at any point to return your own custom namespace.
  2. manipulate _exports however you want towards the end of ns body. For example after _exports .= filterv(Type) only types will be exported. _exports.filterk(/^pub_/) will only export symbols (keys) that have names that start with pub_ .

Improvement suggestions are welcome! Have a nice day!

NGS unique features – Hash methods I wish I had in other languages

NGS is a language and a shell that I am building for systems administration tasks. Enough of the language is implemented to enable writing some useful scripts. The shell is not there yet.

Some of the Hash methods in NGS

The methods for working with Hash I have not seen all at once in other languages are:

  1. filterk – filter Hash by key (produces Hash)
  2. filterv – filter Hash by value (produces Hash)
  3. mapk – map Hash keys (produces Hash)
  4. mapv – map Hash values (produces Hash)
  5. mapkv – map Hash keys and values (produces Hash as opposed to map which produces an array)
  6. without – filters out specific key

How these are actually used? Following is an excerpt from the pollute method (function), which is a part of the AWS module. It uses several of the Hash methods I mentioned, making the method a good example. pollute method (as in “pollute global namespace”) enables using Vpc variable for example instead of AWS::Vpc and so on. I would like to have this behaviour for small quick-and-dirty scripts but not as default so it’s in a method that one can optionally call.

F pollute(do_warn=true) {

    vars =
        _exports.filterk(/^AMI_OWNER/) +
        _exports.filterv(Type).without('Res').without('ResDef') +
        ...

    if do_warn {
        warn("Polluting ...: ${vars.keys().join(', ')}")
    }

    vars.mapk(resolve_global_variable).each(set_global_variable)
}

Let’s go over the code above step by step:

F pollute(do_warn=true) { ... } defines the pollute method with optional parameter do_warn that has default value of true.

_exports is a Hash containing all of the AWS’ module variables and functions, similar to NodeJS module.exports but members are added automatically rather than explicitly. Only the methods and variables that do not start with _ (underscore) are added. One can modify _exports in any way before the end of the module. I will write more in detail about require() and modules in NGS in another post.

filterk(/^AMI_OWNER/) filters all the variables that match the given RegExp

filterv(Type) filters all the variables that are of type Type. These are AWS types’ definitions, such as Vpc, Subnet or Instance.

without('...') filters out the types I don’t like to override.

+ between and after _exports.filterk(...) and _exports.filterv(...) joins the hashes.

mapk translates variables’ names into their index (using resolve_global_variable)

each runs set_global_variable with variable index and the value to set

Hash methods in other languages

I am aware that some of the methods above are present in other languages or libraries. Some examples:

  1. Ruby has mapv (transform_values) method.
  2. Rails has mapk (transform_keys) and mapv.
  3. Perl 6 can modify values in a convenient manner:for %answers.values -> $v is rw { $v += 10 };.

What I have not seen is a language which has all the methods above out of the box. I have a feeling that arrays get all the fame methods while hashes (dictionaries) often get less attention in other languages.

Why NGS has all these methods?

NGS is aiming to be convenient for systems administration tasks. More often than not these tasks include data manipulation. NGS has many functions (methods) for data manipulation, including the ones listed in this post.

Update: reddit discussion


Have a nice day!

NGS unique features – exit code handling

smilies-1607163_640

How other languages treat exit codes?

Most languages that I know do not care about exit codes of processes they run. Some languages do care … but not enough.

Update / Clarification / TL;DR

  1. Only NGS can throw exceptions based on fine grained inspection of exit codes of processes it runs out of the box. For example, exit code 1 of test will not throw an exception while exit code 1 of cat will throw an exception by default. This allows to write correct scripts which do not have explicit exit codes checking and therefore are smaller (meaning better maintainability).
  2. This behaviour is highly customizable.
  3. In NGS, it is OK to write if $(test -f myfile) ... else ... which will throw an exception if exit code of test is 2 (test expression syntax error or alike) while for example in bash and others you should explicitly check and handle exit code 2 because simple if can not cover three possible exit codes of test (zero for yes,  one for no, two for error). Yes, if /usr/bin/test ...; then ...; fi in bash is incorrect! By the way, did you see scripts that actually do check for three possible exit codes of test? I haven’t.
  4. When -e switch is used, bash can exit (somewhat similar to uncaught exception) when exit code of a process that it runs is not zero. This is not fine grained and not customizable.
  5. I do know that exit codes are accessible in other languages when they run a process. Other languages do not act on exit codes with the exception of bash with -e switch. In NGS exit codes are translated to exceptions in a fine grained way.
  6. I am aware that $? in the examples below show the exit code of the language process, not the process that the language runs. I’m contrasting this to bash (-e) and NGS behaviour (exception exits with non-zero exit code from NGS).

Let’s run “test” binary with incorrect arguments.

Perl

> perl -e '`test a b c`; print "OK\n"'; echo $?
test: ‘b’: binary operator expected
OK
0

Ruby

> ruby -e '`test a b c`; puts "OK"'; echo $?
test: ‘b’: binary operator expected
OK
0

Python

> python
>>> import subprocess
>>> subprocess.check_output(['test', 'a', 'b', 'c'])
... subprocess.CalledProcessError ... returned non-zero exit status 2
>>> subprocess.check_output(['test', '-f', 'no-such-file'])
... subprocess.CalledProcessError: ... returned non-zero exit status 1

bash

> bash -c '`/usr/bin/test a b c`; echo OK'; echo $?
/usr/bin/test: ‘b’: binary operator expected
OK
0

> bash -e -c '`/usr/bin/test a b c`; echo OK'; echo $?
/usr/bin/test: ‘b’: binary operator expected
2

Used /usr/bin/test for bash to make examples comparable by not using built-in test in bash.

Perl and Ruby for example, do not see any problem with failing process.

Bash does not care by default but has -e switch to make non-zero exit code fatal, returning the bad exit code when exiting from bash.

Python can differentiate zero and non-zero exit codes.

So, the best we can do is distinguish zero and non-zero exit codes? That’s just not good enough. test for example can return 0 for “true” result, 1 for “false” result and 2 for exceptional situation. Let’s look at this bash code with intentional syntax error in “test”:

if /usr/bin/test --f myfile;then
  echo OK
else
  echo File does not exist
fi

The output is

/usr/bin/test: missing argument after ‘myfile’
File does not exist

Note that -e switch wouldn’t help here. Whatever follows if is allowed to fail (it would be impossible to do anything if -e would affect if and while conditions)

How NGS treats exit codes?

> ngs -e '$(test a b c); echo("OK")'; echo $?
test: ‘b’: binary operator expected
... Exception of type ProcessFail ...
200

> ngs -e '$(nofail test a b c); echo("OK")'; echo $?
test: ‘b’: binary operator expected
OK
0

> ngs -e '$(test -f no-such-file); echo("OK")'; echo $?
OK
0

> ngs -e '$(test -d .); echo("OK")'; echo $?
OK
0

NGS has easily configurable behaviour regarding how to treat exit codes of processes. Built-in behaviour knows about false, test, fuser and ping commands. For unknown processes, non-zero exit code is an exception.

If you use a command that returns non-zero exit code as part of its normal operation you can use nofail prefix as in the example above or customize NGS behaviour regarding the exit code of your process or even better, make a pull request adding it to stdlib.

How easy is to customize exit code checking for your own command? Here is the code from stdlib that defines current behaviour. You decide for yourself (skipping nofail as it’s not something typical an average user is expected to do).

F finished_ok(p:Process) p.exit_code == 0

F finished_ok(p:Process) {
    guard p.executable.path == '/bin/false'
    p.exit_code == 1
}

F finished_ok(p:Process) {
    guard p.executable.path in ['/usr/bin/test', '/bin/fuser', '/bin/ping']
    p.exit_code in [0, 1]
}

Let’s get back to the bash if test ... example and rewrite the it in NGS:

if $(test --f myfile)
    echo("OK")
else
    echo("File does not exist")

… and run it …

... Exception of type ProcessFail ...

For if purposes, zero exit code is true and any non-zero exit code is false. Again, customizable. Such exit code treatment allows the if ... test ... NGS example above to function properly, somewhat similar to bash but with exceptions when needed.

NGS’ behaviour makes much more sense for me. I hope it makes sense for you.

Update: Reddit discussion.


Have a nice weekend!

NGS unique features – execute and parse

I am developing a shell and a language called NGS. I keep repeating it’s domain specific. What are the unique features that make NGS most suitable for today’s system administration tasks (a.k.a “Operations” or hype-compatible word “DevOps”)?

This post is first in series that show what makes NGS unique.

one-979261_640

Execute and parse operator

Execute-and-parse operator … executes a command and parses it’s output. This one proved to be central in working with AWS API. Citing ec2din.ngs demo script:

``aws ec2 describe-instances $*filters``

The expression above returns a data structure. The command is run, the output is captured and then fed to parse() method. Whatever the parse() method returns is the result of the ``exec-and-parse syntax`` expression above.

Built-in parsing

By default, NGS parses any JSON output when running a command using ``exec-and-parse`` syntax. (TODO: parse YAML too)

In case with AWS CLI commands additional processing takes place to make the data structure coming out of exec-and-parse operator more useful:

  1. The top level of AWS responses is usually a hash that has one key which has an array as value: {"LoadBalancerDescriptions": [NGS, returns, this] } . While I can guess few reasons for such format, I find it much more useful to have an array as a result of running an AWS CLI command and that’s what NGS returns if you run ``aws ...`` commands.
  2. Specifically for aws ec2 describe-instances I’ve removed the annoyance of having Reservations list with instances as sub-lists. NGS returns flat instances list. Sorry, Amazon, this is much more productive.

Customizable parsing

What if you have your own special command with it’s own special output format?

The parsing is customizable via defining your own parse(s:Str, hints:Hash) method implementation. That means you can define how your command is parsed.

 No parsing

Don’t want parsed data? No problem, stick with the `command` syntax instead of ``command``. In case you need original data structure you can use `command`.decode_json() for example.

Why exec-and-parse is an operator?

Why adding an exec_parse() function would not be sufficient?

  1. Execute-and-parse is common operation in system tasks so it should be short. NGS has taken the pragmatic approach: the more common the operation, the shorter the syntax.
  2. Execute-and-parse should look similar `execute-and-capture-output` syntax which already existed when I was adding execute-and-parse.
  3. Making it an operator allows the command to be executed to be written in “commands syntax” (a bit bash-like) which is a better fit.

“I can add this as a function to any language!”

Sure but:

  1. Your chances of getting same brevity are not very good
  2. Making exec-and-parse as flexible as in NGS in other languages would be an additional effort
  3. ``some-command arg1 arg2`` – would it be exec_parse(['some-command', 'arg1', 'arg2']) ? How do you solve the syntax of the passed command? The array syntax does not look good here. Not many languages will allow you to have special syntax for commands to be passed to exec_parse().

If your language is not domain-specific for system tasks, adding exec-and-parse to it will be a task with dubious benefit.

How extreme opposite looks like

Just came across build configuration file of Firefox: settings.gradle (sorry, could not find a link to this file on a web in a sane amount of time). Here is excerpt with lines wrapped for convenience.

def commandLine = ["${topsrcdir}/mach", "environment", "--format",
    "json", "--verbose"]
def proc = commandLine.execute(null, new File(topsrcdir))
def standardOutput = new ByteArrayOutputStream()
proc.consumeProcessOutput(standardOutput, standardOutput)
proc.waitFor()

...

import groovy.json.JsonSlurper
def slurper = new JsonSlurper()
def json = slurper.parseText(standardOutput.toString())

...

if (json.substs.MOZ_BUILD_APP != 'mobile/android') {
...
}

Here is how roughly equivalent code looks in NGS (except for the new File(topsrcdir) which I don’t understand):

json = ``"${topsrcdir}/mach" environment --format json --verbose``
...
if json.substs.MOZ_BUILD_APP != 'mobile/android' {
...
}

Yes, there are many languages where exec-and-parse functionality looks like something in between Gradle and NGS. I don’t think there is one that can do what NGS does in this regard out of the box. I’m not saying NGS is better than other languages for all tasks. NGS is aiming to be better at some tasks. Dealing with I/O and data structures is definitely a target area.


Have a nice day!

Why NGS has no “undefined”

Since I know JavaScript, some Ruby and a bit of Perl which all have the concept of undefined it was a decision I had to make whether I implement undefined in NGS. This article shows why I decided not to have the undefined value/data type.

Update (thanks /u/EldritchSundae): what you observe in Ruby example below is nil, not undefined. In bash the undefined value is empty string. Ruby does not have undefined but it has the ability to read non-existing hash keys without causing an exception like JavaScript and Perl. In Ruby’s case the result is nil, not undef (Perl) or undefined (JavaScript).

Undefined in other languages

Showing here few common cases, not all possible usages.

JavaScript

> nodejs -e 'const a; console.log(a)'
undefined

> nodejs -e 'const h={}; console.log(h["xyz"])'
undefined

> nodejs -e '(function f(a,b) { console.log(a,b) })(1)'
1 undefined

Ruby

> ruby -e 'h={}; puts h["xyz"]' # outputs empty line

Perl

> perl -e '%h=(); print $h{"xyz"}' # outputs nothing

bash

> bash -c 'echo $a' # outputs empty line

Absence of undefined in NGS

Adding yet another data type to NGS needs justification. I can’t find any justification for undefined. I do consider the usages above bugs. Accessing a variable or a place that were not assigned any value is an error.

Conveying absence of a value in NGS is done similar to other languages with the special null value. There are also somewhat experimental Box, FullBox and EmptyBox types, similar to Option, Some and None in Scala.

Undefined as a hash value for non-existing keys

Having undefined returned when looking up non-existing hash key is a trade-off. It’s more convenient and more error-prone. I have chosen Python-like approach: it’s an error.

> ngs -e 'h={}; h["xyz"]'
... Exception of type KeyNotFound ...

# and added convenience method "get"
> ngs -p 'h={}; h.get("xyz", "NONE")'
NONE

Undefined when accessing unset variable

While bash gives you an empty string by default and Perl gives you undef, I do think accessing unset variable is definitely a bug. I guess it was understood at some point by the creators of bash and Perl so bash has -u flag that makes accessing undefined variable an error and Perl has use strict mode which does the same among other things.

> bash -c 'echo $a' # no error
> bash -c 'set -u; echo $a'
bash: a: unbound variable

> bash -c 'a=(); echo ${a[0]}' # no error, just horrible syntax :)
> bash -c 'set -u; a=(); echo ${a[0]}'
bash: a[0]: unbound variable

> perl -e 'print $a' # no error
> perl -e 'use strict; print $a;'
# no error - I have no idea why, probably some "special" variable

# Perl - take number two:
> perl -e 'print $abc' # no error
> perl -e 'use strict; print $abc;'
Global symbol "$abc" requires explicit package name
(did you forget to declare "my $abc"?) at -e line 1.
Execution of -e aborted due to compilation errors.

Undefined as value for parameters without arguments

Calling an NGS function with less arguments than it expects is an error as in most languages:

> ngs -e '(F (a,b) 10)(1)'
... Exception of type ArgsMismatch ..

By the way, I do cringe every time I see JavaScript code that explicitly uses undefined:

function f(optional_a, optional_b) { }
f(undefined, 10)

The programmer took a decision not to pass a value. How in the world is this undefined? Use null for f*ck sake!


Have a nice day!

Unicode characters as operators in a programming language¿

Wouldn’t it be cool to use Unicode characters as operators and maybe even function names?

if a ≠ b { ... }

range = 0…10

all_above_ten = myarr ∀ F(x) x > 10

Looks good, concise, expressive. Perl 6, Julia, Scala appear to support Unicode operators.

Why don’t I add Unicode operators and function names to NGS then?

If NGS would allow Unicode, it would be optional as I don’t want additional entry barrier or possible problems typing Unicode using remote connection. If I do add optional Unicode to NGS, here is what I think will happen next:

Some people start using Unicode in NGS while others don’t. Mixed code style emerges. It’s easy to imagine such mixed code style even in the same file as someone without the Unicode setup on his/her keyboard  is doing a quick fix. ViralBShah sums it up pretty well.

What do you think? Your comments are welcome.