You shouldn’t name your variables after their types for the same reason you wouldn’t name your pets “dog” or “cat”

The name of a variable should describe its contents, not the type of the contents. Consider this example:

var usersMap map[string]*User

What are some good properties of this declaration? We can see that it’s a map, and it has something to do with the *User type, so that’s probably good. But usersMapis a map and Go, being a statically typed language, won’t let us accidentally use a map where a different type is required, so the Map suffix as a safety precaution is redundant.

Now, consider what happens if we declare other variables using this pattern:

var (
companiesMap map[string]*Company
productsMap map[string]*Products
)

Now we have three map type variables in scope, usersMapcompaniesMap, and productsMap, all mapping strings to different struct types. We know they are maps, and we also know that their declarations prevent us from using one in place of another—​the compiler will throw an error if we try to use companiesMap where the code is expecting a map[string]*User. In this situation it’s clear that the Map suffix does not improve the clarity of the code, its just extra boilerplate to type.

My suggestion is avoid any suffix that resembles the type of the variable. Said another way, if users isn’t descriptive enough, then usersMap won’t be either.

This advice also applies to function parameters. For example:

type Config struct {
//
}

func WriteConfig(w io.Writer, config *Config)

Naming the *Config parameter config is redundant. We know it’s a pointer to a Config, it says so right there in the declaration. Instead consider if conf will do, or maybe just c if the lifetime of the variable is short enough.

This advice is more than just a desire for brevity. If there is more that one *Config in scope at any one time, calling them config1 and config2 is less descriptive than calling them original and updated . The latter are less likely to be accidentally transposed—something the compiler won’t catch—while the former differ only in a one character suffix.

Finally, don’t let package names steal good variable names. The name of an imported identifier includes its package name. For example the Context type in the context package will be known as context.Context when imported into another package . This makes it impossible to use context as a variable or type, unless of course you rename the import, but that’s throwing good after bad. This is why the local declaration for context.Context types is traditionally ctx. eg.

func WriteLog(ctx context.Context, message string)

A variable’s name should be independent of its type. You shouldn’t name your variables after their types for the same reason you wouldn’t name your pets “dog” or “cat”. You shouldn’t include the name of your type in the name of your variable for the same reason.

Eliminate error handling by eliminating errors

Go 2 aims to improve the overhead of error handling, but do you know what is better than an improved syntax for handling errors? Not needing to handle errors at all. Now, I’m not saying “delete your error handling code”, instead I’m suggesting changing your code so you don’t have as many errors to handle.

This article draws inspiration from a chapter in John Ousterhout’s, A philosophy of Software Design, “Define Errors Out of Existence”. I’m going to try to apply his advice to Go.


Here’s a function to count the number of lines in a file,

func CountLines(r io.Reader) (int, error) {
var (
br = bufio.NewReader(r)
lines int
err error
)

for {
_, err = br.ReadString('\n')
lines++
if err != nil {
break
}
}

if err != io.EOF {
return 0, err
}
return lines, nil
}

We construct a bufio.Reader, then sit in a loop calling the ReadString method, incrementing a counter until we reach the end of the file, then we return the number of lines read. That’s the code we wanted to write, instead CountLines is made more complicated by its error handling. For example, there is this strange construction:

                _, err = br.ReadString('\n')
lines++
if err != nil {
break
}

We increment the count of lines before checking the error—​that looks odd. The reason we have to write it this way is ReadString will return an error if it encounters an end-of-file—io.EOF—before hitting a newline character. This can happen if there is no trailing newline.

To address this problem, we rearrange the logic to increment the line count, then see if we need to exit the loop.1

But we’re not done checking errors yet. ReadString will return io.EOF when it hits the end of the file. This is expected, ReadString needs some way of saying stop, there is nothing more to read. So before we return the error to the caller of CountLine, we need to check if the error was not io.EOF, and in that case propagate it up, otherwise we return nil to say that everything worked fine. This is why the final line of the function is not simply

return lines, err

I think this is a good example of Russ Cox’s observation that error handling can obscure the operation of the function. Let’s look at an improved version.

func CountLines(r io.Reader) (int, error) {
sc := bufio.NewScanner(r)
lines := 0

for sc.Scan() {
lines++
}

return lines, sc.Err()
}

This improved version switches from using bufio.Reader to bufio.Scanner. Under the hood bufio.Scanner uses bufio.Reader adding a layer of abstraction which helps remove the error handling which obscured the operation of our previous version of CountLines 2

The method sc.Scan() returns true if the scanner has matched a line of text and has not encountered an error. So, the body of our for loop will be called only when there is a line of text in the scanner’s buffer. This means our revised CountLines correctly handles the case where there is no trailing newline, It also correctly handles the case where the file is empty.

Secondly, as sc.Scan returns false once an error is encountered, our for loop will exit when the end-of-file is reached or an error is encountered. The bufio.Scanner type memoises the first error it encounters and we recover that error once we’ve exited the loop using the sc.Err() method.

Lastly, buffo.Scanner takes care of handling io.EOF and will convert it to a nil if the end of file was reached without encountering another error.


My second example is inspired by Rob Pikes’ Errors are values blog post.

When dealing with opening, writing and closing files, the error handling is present but not overwhelming as, the operations can be encapsulated in helpers like ioutil.ReadFile and ioutil.WriteFile. However, when dealing with low level network protocols it often becomes necessary to build the response directly using I/O primitives, thus the error handling can become repetitive. Consider this fragment of a HTTP server which is constructing a HTTP/1.1 response.

type Header struct {
Key, Value string
}

type Status struct {
Code int
Reason string
}

func WriteResponse(w io.Writer, st Status, headers []Header, body io.Reader) error {
_, err := fmt.Fprintf(w, "HTTP/1.1 %d %s\r\n", st.Code, st.Reason)
if err != nil {
return err
}

for _, h := range headers {
_, err := fmt.Fprintf(w, "%s: %s\r\n", h.Key, h.Value)
if err != nil {
return err
}
}

if _, err := fmt.Fprint(w, "\r\n"); err != nil {
return err
}

_, err = io.Copy(w, body)
return err
}

First we construct the status line using fmt.Fprintf, and check the error. Then for each header we write the header key and value, checking the error each time. Lastly we terminate the header section with an additional \r\n, check the error, and copy the response body to the client. Finally, although we don’t need to check the error from io.Copy, we do need to translate it from the two return value form that io.Copy returns into the single return value that WriteResponse expects.

Not only is this a lot of repetitive work, each operation—fundamentally writing bytes to an io.Writer—has a different form of error handling. But we can make it easier on ourselves by introducing a small wrapper type.

type errWriter struct {
io.Writer
err error
}

func (e *errWriter) Write(buf []byte) (int, error) {
if e.err != nil {
return 0, e.err
}

var n int
n, e.err = e.Writer.Write(buf)
return n, nil
}

errWriter fulfils the io.Writer contract so it can be used to wrap an existing io.WritererrWriter passes writes through to its underlying writer until an error is detected. From that point on, it discards any writes and returns the previous error.

func WriteResponse(w io.Writer, st Status, headers []Header, body io.Reader) error {
ew := &errWriter{Writer: w}
fmt.Fprintf(ew, "HTTP/1.1 %d %s\r\n", st.Code, st.Reason)

for _, h := range headers {
fmt.Fprintf(ew, "%s: %s\r\n", h.Key, h.Value)
}

fmt.Fprint(ew, "\r\n")
io.Copy(ew, body)

return ew.err
}

Applying errWriter to WriteResponse dramatically improves the clarity of the code. Each of the operations no longer needs to bracket itself with an error check. Reporting the error is moved to the end of the function by inspecting the ew.err field, avoiding the annoying translation from io.Copy’s return values.


When you find yourself faced with overbearing error handling, try to extract some of the operations into a helper type.

Avoid package names like base, util, or common

Writing a good Go package starts with its name. Think of your package’s name as an elevator pitch, you have to describe what it does using just one word.

A common cause of poor package names are utility packages. These are packages where helpers and utility code congeal. These packages contain an assortment of unrelated functions, as such their utility is hard to describe in terms of what the package provides. This often leads to a package’s name being derived from what the package contains—utilities.

Package names like utils or helpers are commonly found in projects which have developed deep package hierarchies and want to share helper functions without introducing import loops. Extracting utility functions to new package breaks the import loop, but as the package stems from a design problem in the project, its name doesn’t reflect its purpose, only its function in breaking the import cycle.

[A little] duplication is far cheaper than the wrong abstraction.

Sandy Metz

My recommendation to improve the name of utils or helpers packages is to analyse where they are imported and move the relevant functions into the calling package. Even if this results in some code duplication this is preferable to introducing an import dependency between two packages. In the case where utility functions are used in many places, prefer multiple packages, each focused on a single aspect with a correspondingly descriptive name.

Packages with names like base or common are often found when functionality common to two or more related facilities, for example common types between a client and server or a server and its mock, has been refactored into a separate package. Instead the solution is to reduce the number of packages by combining client, server, and common code into a single package named after the facility the package provides.

For example, the net/http package does not have client and server packages, instead it has client.go and server.go files, each holding their respective types. transport.go holds for the common message transport code used by both HTTP clients and servers.

Name your packages after what they provide, not what they contain.