The way I see it, Go did two things that made it work well:
- Have a very simple, fairly well-defined interface for arbitrary read/write streams. This interface needs to have decent characteristics for performance, some kind of error handling, and a way to deal with blocking. Go's interface satisfies all three.
- Have a good story for async in general. It's not really helpful to have an answer for how to deal with I/O blocking if the answer is really crappy and nobody actually wants to use it. A lot of older async I/O solutions felt very much in this camp.
I think that Rust does a pretty decent job, though I'm a little bearish on their approach to async. (Not that I have any better ideas; to the contrary, I'm pretty convinced that Rust async is necessarily a mess and there's not much that can be done to make it significantly better.)
But I think you can actually do a decent job of this even in traditional C++, in the right conditions. In fact, I used QIODevice much the way one would use io.Reader/io.Writer in Go. It was a little more cumbersome, but the theory is much the same. So I think it's not necessarily that Go did something especially well, I think the truth is actually sadder: I think most programming languages and their standard libraries just have a terrible story around I/O and asynchronicity. I do think that the state of the art has gotten better here and that future programming languages are unlikely to not attempt to solve this problem. So at least there's that.
The truth is that input and output is unreliable, limited and latent by the nature of it. You can ignore it for disk because it's relatively fast. But at the end of the day, the bytes you're writing to disk need to go through the user/kernel boundary, possibly a couple times, to the filesystem, most likely asynchronously out of the CPU to the I/O controller, to the disk which likely buffers it, and then finally from the disk's buffers to its platters or cells or what have you. That's a lot of stuff going on.
I think it's fair to say that "input and output" in this context means "anything that goes out of the processor." For example, storing data in a register would certainly not be I/O. Memory/RAM is generally excluded from I/O, because it's treated as a critical extension of the CPU and sometimes packaged with it anyway; it's fair for your application (and operating system) to crash violently if someone unplugs a stick of RAM.
But that reality is not extended almost anywhere else. USB flash drives can be yanked out of the port at any time, and that's just how it goes; all buffers are going to get dropped and the state of the flash drive is just whatever it was when it was yanked, roughly. USB flash drives are not a special case. Hell, you can obviously hotplug ordinary SSDs and HDDs, too, even if you wouldn't typically do so in a home computer.
So is disk I/O seriously that different from network I/O? It's "unreliable" (relative to registers or RAM). It's "slow" (relative to registers or RAM). It has "latency" (relative to registers or RAM). The difference seems to be the degree of unreliability and the degree of latency, but still. Should you treat a `write` call to disk differently than a `write` call to the network? I argue not very much.
I don't really know 100% why the situation is bad with Python, but I can only say that I don't really think it should've been. Of course, hindsight is 20:20. It's probably a lot more complicated than I think.
"I think the truth is actually sadder: I think most programming languages and their standard libraries just have a terrible story around I/O and asynchronicity."
Whenever I post this sort of claim, I try to make it clear that it's not really "Go triumphalism", because I agree with you. It ought to be just as easy in a lot of other languages too. It's not a matter of features, or missing features, or features at all.
C and C++ both have a number of abstractions I've seen on this idea, but they aren't compatible and not universal, so using them is a pain because you pretty much have to adapt everything yourself into whatever you are using. (C is particularly problematic; two libraries or even just two adaptors to some particular IO facility can be API compatible but still not work together properly if they have different ideas about memory ownership. C++ can still get into that problem though my perception is there's a better understanding of the problems, if nothing else. Rust has a huge advantage on that front.) Go had enough leadership that everybody has the same abstraction out of the box, and you end up very encouraged by the community to conform to it unless you have good reasons. Good reasons exist; I've got some things that wrap io.Readers but just can't be io.Readers on their own because the abstraction doesn't fit. But they are the exceptions, and I don't see them often.
- Have a very simple, fairly well-defined interface for arbitrary read/write streams. This interface needs to have decent characteristics for performance, some kind of error handling, and a way to deal with blocking. Go's interface satisfies all three.
- Have a good story for async in general. It's not really helpful to have an answer for how to deal with I/O blocking if the answer is really crappy and nobody actually wants to use it. A lot of older async I/O solutions felt very much in this camp.
I think that Rust does a pretty decent job, though I'm a little bearish on their approach to async. (Not that I have any better ideas; to the contrary, I'm pretty convinced that Rust async is necessarily a mess and there's not much that can be done to make it significantly better.)
But I think you can actually do a decent job of this even in traditional C++, in the right conditions. In fact, I used QIODevice much the way one would use io.Reader/io.Writer in Go. It was a little more cumbersome, but the theory is much the same. So I think it's not necessarily that Go did something especially well, I think the truth is actually sadder: I think most programming languages and their standard libraries just have a terrible story around I/O and asynchronicity. I do think that the state of the art has gotten better here and that future programming languages are unlikely to not attempt to solve this problem. So at least there's that.
The truth is that input and output is unreliable, limited and latent by the nature of it. You can ignore it for disk because it's relatively fast. But at the end of the day, the bytes you're writing to disk need to go through the user/kernel boundary, possibly a couple times, to the filesystem, most likely asynchronously out of the CPU to the I/O controller, to the disk which likely buffers it, and then finally from the disk's buffers to its platters or cells or what have you. That's a lot of stuff going on.
I think it's fair to say that "input and output" in this context means "anything that goes out of the processor." For example, storing data in a register would certainly not be I/O. Memory/RAM is generally excluded from I/O, because it's treated as a critical extension of the CPU and sometimes packaged with it anyway; it's fair for your application (and operating system) to crash violently if someone unplugs a stick of RAM.
But that reality is not extended almost anywhere else. USB flash drives can be yanked out of the port at any time, and that's just how it goes; all buffers are going to get dropped and the state of the flash drive is just whatever it was when it was yanked, roughly. USB flash drives are not a special case. Hell, you can obviously hotplug ordinary SSDs and HDDs, too, even if you wouldn't typically do so in a home computer.
So is disk I/O seriously that different from network I/O? It's "unreliable" (relative to registers or RAM). It's "slow" (relative to registers or RAM). It has "latency" (relative to registers or RAM). The difference seems to be the degree of unreliability and the degree of latency, but still. Should you treat a `write` call to disk differently than a `write` call to the network? I argue not very much.
I don't really know 100% why the situation is bad with Python, but I can only say that I don't really think it should've been. Of course, hindsight is 20:20. It's probably a lot more complicated than I think.