Adam: Welcome to CoRecursive, where we bring you discussions with thought leaders in the world of software development. I am Adam, your host.
Richard: So it’s not as much that I’m a fan of it, it’s more I feel that it’s real and it’s there. And the more we try to abstract over it, we’ll both, one, our abstractions will get messy. The underlying details will leak because they inevitably do. And then it will be end up working with a sort of unpredictable and not really performant abstraction. That’s probably worse in every respect than working with the underlying, somewhat poorly designed operating system interface in the first place.
Adam: That was Richard Whaling. He has an interesting perspective on software development. If you write software for the JVM, or if you’re interested in low level systems programming, then you’ll find this interview super interesting. I mean, I think lots of people will find it interesting who don’t fit into those categories. I saw Richard present at a conference a couple of years ago. He was talking about building his own web server and it was a super interesting talk. So I’m excited, I’m finally getting the chance to have a nice long chat with him. If you like the podcast, I recommend you subscribe to it and stay tuned to the end of the episode for an update about the Slack channel. Richard Whaling, thank you for joining me on the podcast.
Richard: Yeah. Thank you so much for having me, Adam.
Adam: So you are the author of Modern Systems Programming with Scala Native?
Richard: That’s right.
Adam: I’ve read half the book and this is actually good for me this case, because it’s not that I got lazy and didn’t finish it. Actually, I think only half of the book has been released.
Richard: That’s right. It’s in Pragmatic’s beta early access program. So there’s five chapters available online now for anyone who wants to get in on it early. And then I’m going to be uploading additional chapters probably about one a month or thereabouts until it’s done, hopefully sometime this summer.
Adam: Awesome. So the very first interview I did was actually with Denys Shabalin, the original creator of Scala Native. And in it we talked a lot about kind of the implementation details, and I think it’s great if you want to go check it out, but I don’t think it will be required for this episode. So I wanted to ask you as an end user, what is Scala Native?
What is scala native?
What should be interested?
Adam: Who should be interested in Scala Native?
Richard: That’s a really good question. I think there’s sort of two different angles. First of all, I think really anyone working on Scala should take some notice of Scala Native. I think especially in the last year or two, I feel like there’s a movement away from Scala as a single platform language that’s really closely tied to the Java ecosystem. And both more of an emphasis, first of all on pure Scala libraries things like STDP is a great example. And then along with that a move towards more explicitly embracing Scala as a multi-platform language specifically. So Scala.js is a few years ahead of Scala Native in terms of uptake, and broad library support. But I think we’re moving towards the direction of really having three different platforms that can run Scala code. You can run it on the JVM, you can run it on the web or you can run it as Native machine code. And I think there’s a place for all of them in the ecosystem.
Adam: That makes sense was that? I think you said there was two classes of people?
Richard: Yeah. You’re right. Thank you. And then the other side is really people coming at it from this like Native or systems programming sort of angle. Where I mean, obviously Rust is a language that’s made a huge amount of impact in that area. Both people switching from writing C++ to writing Rust and also bringing people in to writing code at a much lower level than they’d ever thought possible before. Mostly because Rust provides modern ergonomics and language teachers and has a really inviting and supportive community in a way that C and C++ may have lacked. I think similarly Scala Native provides access to really low level techniques in a way that’s more friendly and ergonomic than anything people would probably use before, while also having a pretty substantially different spin than Rust for what it’s worth.
Adam: Do you find yourself in a specific camp? What brings you to Scala Native?
Richard: Yeah that’s a good question. I mean, for background, I started writing Scala maybe about 10 years ago, maybe nine and it was from a background of writing C and writing Python and from Python C inter-op especially for like XML databases, information retrieval stuff like that. And I originally started with Scala because I thought it’s XML the support looks really good. And I’m not working on XML anymore, unfortunately, so it’s not nearly as much of a problem. But for me having the ability to go down to a very low level and write C when necessary to solve a problem is sort of how I think about how to solve problems. And sort of losing that capability when I switched to mostly working on the JVM was really hard for me.
So when I started seeing Scala Native show up at conferences and it was like and just saw the elegance of Scala Natives C inter-op, it was just like nothing I’d ever seen before. Like compared to working with Python or even to languages like Lua, it’s just the cleanest, most straightforward C inter-op I think I’ve ever seen. So I just sort of picked it up and started making like tiny PRs mostly to add C standard library function bindings, and sort of took it from there.
Adam: So when using Scala Native I lose the Java libraries, is that right?
Richard: You lose at the very least the JDK implementations of the Java libraries, it’s tricky for Scala.js and Scala Native because the Scala language itself does rely on Java libraries and a lot of fundamental levels for things like arrays, regular expressions strings. Even when Scala provides its own Scala string and Scala array classes, under the hood those are depending on Java string and array classes, a lot of the time. So the approach that both Scala.js and Scala Natives have taken is that they provide alternative non-JVM implementations of these classes wherever possible.
And the idea is that the surface area of Java libraries that you need to cover to get Scala the language running is not that large. It’s a couple 100 classes I think, and those are all provided as part of the standard Scala Native distribution. The trouble is the line between a few hundred core Java classes versus the tens of thousands of classes in a full JDK is enormous, right? And even contemplating what it would take to re-implement all of those is terrifying. And further, what you’ve lost is you’ve also lost the entire ecosystem of Java libraries. And in some ways that’s more painful than just the core JDK in some ways.
So what you generally find in Scala Native is to solve a new problem a lot of times you’ll look and find a C library that solves the problem well before you look for you’d find necessarily in the Scala ecosystem. That’s changing more and more just because we’re getting better pure Scala implementations of so many core parts of the domain. Like we’re just getting close to having a really good pure Scala implementation of HOCON, the type safe configuration library that’s really widely used. Whereas before that was a library that’s incredibly widely used, but a lot of it is implemented in Java which would make it unusable in Scala.js and Scala Native. So moving towards having pure 100% Scala implementations of important libraries is really important just for sort of allowing cross-platform development to work easily.
Adam: So it seems like it’s a great time for it to emerge then, because as you were saying like for a long time, maybe using Java libraries is less common now, it’s still quite common but I guess there’s a lot of pure scala implementations that are used and that makes transposing things to Native that much easier?
Richard: Yeah. You know, I think it really does. It means you can pick up a JSON library like Argonaut off the shelf and it’ll just sort of work, versus having to find a C library or something like that. It’s also just a really good time because I feel like there’s also just sort of a cycling of the common libraries used in the Scala ecosystem. And I think there’s a lot of things that are getting redesigned or people are bringing in new libraries for things like config for HTTP, a lot of areas like that. So it’s a really interesting time to be building and designing new libraries and making an impact there I guess.
Adam: So you mentioned inter-op with C?
Adam: How does that work?
Richard: In Scala Native it’s really simple. It’s literally just a one line function def just like in a regular Scala program. You define a single-node object you annotate that it’s an [inaudible 00:11:12] object and then let’s say you want to write a binding for a function like Quicksort, the C Quicksort takes off the top of my head it takes four arguments. It takes a void pointer to the array of data to sort, it takes the number of elements in the array which is just an integer, it takes the size of each element of the array and bytes. And then the fourth argument is a function pointer to the actual comparator that Quicksort uses to actually implement the pairwise comparisons. And it’s this sort of magical C library function that is both incredibly low level, quite generic. And when you compare it to sorting routines in a high level language like in Java or Python, it’s sort of ludicrously performing like usually one or two orders of magnitude faster compared to sorting in a higher level language with richer data structures.
So you take a function like that, literally all you have to do to use in Scala Native is you write a Scala def and you give it the same name as the function you want to bind, and the same arguments. You have to translate the types a little bit, so I’m a void star, void pointer, and C becomes a pointer of byte in Scala. So in Scala Native, pointer is actually just a generic data type which turns out to be incredibly elegant. And it can actually make these function declarations and type definitions and stuff like that quite a bit easier to read than C syntax. Which kind of frankly feel like line noise sometimes with function points, and things like that.
So it’s actually really straightforward. And if there’s a function from the C standard library that’s missing that you need to use, one, you can provide it in your own code easily. Again, just a one-line function definition, but also like contributing those bindings to Scala Native itself is a really easy, quick one byte small PR. And that was how I got involved in the first place, was just sort of knocking these things out because there was a bunch of string tokenization function that I wanted to use for some reason.
Adam: That’s interesting. It’s hard to picture, I think so like what the code looks like for instance, if you’re using this Qsort is standard Scala, right? You’re going to import this namespace that’s like the C standard library. And then you have the generic pointer type of the type of data that is in that. You have to do a lot of casting I think that’s the big difference, right?
Richard: Yeah. And that’s the thing that probably feels the most different about working with Scala Native, just because casting pointers and structs and arrays in Scala Native has similarly unsafe semantics to how C works. C is a typed language, but in many ways it’s a weakly typed language and that not only will the compiler allow you to freely cast between nominally unrelated data types, but a lot of really important APIs require you to do so, in a way that feels deeply unhygienic to people like me who have been working in strong, safe type systems like Scalas for 10 years. So it can be a little awkward to learn the patterns there if you never learned them from C and maybe it’s even harder to trust yourself to do all of these sort of free unsafe tasks that C programmers do all the time. But once you get the hang of it, it’s actually incredibly powerful. And the absence of run time overhead that you get from just doing this sort of pure compile time casting and maintaining a certain type disciplines oneself is kind of crazy honestly.
I think in my Scala days talks last year, I had some pretty good benchmarks on this and I don’t 100% remember all of the numbers off the top of my head. But the thing that was really impressive is that the difference in performance between like say sorting a large Java array versus Quicksort in Scala Native on a large array of structs, you couldn’t even say that Scala Native was x% faster because it was a super linear improvement in performance as the size of the array gets bigger, which was surprising and really cool. And the reason that happens is because if you have a large array in Java or in JVM Scala you have your array, but you’re also storing a ton of objects on the heap. And the larger the heap gets the more time and the more resources your system is going to spend on garbage collection.
Super linear performance increase
Whereas with Scala Native or with C, an array of structs is manually managed memory. It’s never going to get garbage collected. You can have regular garbage collected on heap objects also, but if you keep all of your bulk data like gigabytes of data off the main heap, it’s basically free for the purposes of like runtime GC overhead. And that’s more than like, this is 20, 30% faster, and that’s where you find the difference between a program that can run and a program that can’t. Like it makes things possible that just aren’t possible with vanilla Scala and like large on heap data structures in a lot of ways.
Adam: Yeah, it’s kind of crazy. So what you’re actually saying is like sorting things… Quicksort let’s say it’s supposed to be like and log in complexity I think it might be right. But you’re saying that the complexity class is actually completely different in a managed environment like you think that you’re not actually getting that performance because of all this overhead that you’re not counting. So when you go Native, you’re actually in a whole different class of performance, is that?
Richard: Yeah. I think that’s a really good way to put it. I think Native Quicksort is going to perform like the algorithmic lower bound of Quicksort. I think Quicksort might nominally be N-squared, but just a very well-optimized N-squared, but I’m fuzzy. But you’re right, so the differences that with the JVM, you have this performance penalty of garbage collection on top of everything. And the burden the garbage collector places on large data intensive operations is much larger than actually running computations on them in a lot of cases. And we take these large, heavy legacy virtual machine managed environments for granted so much in every modern language. I think we lose sight of how much performance we’re giving up to these run times in some ways, I don’t know.
Google N Gram data
Adam: Yeah. In your book, you use Scala Native to manipulate a Google Ngram data. Why was that a good choice? Why was Scala Native a good choice there?
Richard: Why was Scala Native a good choice? Well, first of all, for all of the kinds of reasons I’ve put out there already. That when you’re really trying to process bulk data and I picked Google Ngrams because just the letter A file for this data set is like two gigabytes. And you can get way, way more data than this if you want to. Once you approach the size of around two plus gigabytes of data, that’s where a JVM heap is really going to start to have trouble. And it turned out to be a really great way to exemplify the virtues of Scala Native for doing this kind of bulk off-heap data processing on a real data set and with simple, but somewhat practical, real world use case of taking two gigabytes of data, aggregating it and sorting it, which I think is a pretty common and understandable task with this kind of file.
Adam: Yeah. Like the first example you do, you’re just reading it line by line, I think and just finding the max line value. So to me it feels like the JVM should do this very well?
Richard: Right. And reading lines one at a time is something the JVM does well and is pretty well optimized for. But even then when it’s doing that, it’s going to be allocating data for a string and then freeing that object, with a file like this tens of millions of times, right?
Adam: Mm-hmm (affirmative).
Richard: And thus, even for these really small object allocations, without having to actually persist a huge amount of data onto the heap, right? Like there’s not a huge amount of data being retained in this case. It’s just a lot of data goes in and a lot of data goes out. Even in that use case, the garbage collector is really imposing a lot of overhead. Whereas what you can do with Scala Native is instead of allocating data over and over to read lines in, and then discard them, you can just allocate a static buffer like a kilobyte one time, and then you can read every file into the buffer and then you don’t have to free anything. You just keep reading data into the same buffer and just process all the data in place. And then there’s no allocations at all, no de-allocations. So even where you don’t actually have the overhead of the large heap but just high GC throughput, it’s still possible to beat the JVM.
Adam: And I did try running this on my machine and yeah, it’s definitely faster. And then you had the second example, I think you were hinting at it where you kind of aggregate this data. So that was interesting because the results was not quite what I expected.
Richard: Yeah. And I’m curious what you were expecting from doing like an aggregation and a sort.
Adam: Well, so the example I think was just grouping all the data because it’s split by years. The thing that was surprising to me was that the non-native version couldn’t do it like it was just too much.
Richard: Yeah. So I was expecting the JVM to do a little better there, to be honest. And I mean my code isn’t always perfect either. So it’s certainly possible a high performance JVM specialist could write a Scala or a Java program that can do this. I certainly know people who do that for a living, but I was a little surprised that the basic JVM like array classes, and string classes really couldn’t handle what to me was a somewhat intensive, but not outlandish ask, I guess. Processing a two gigabyte file and sort of aggregating it to maybe a couple 100 megabytes on-heap storage seems to me something we should expect a reasonable language implementation to be able to do. So to me, this is a really important way just to illustrate that the overhead and just the cost of the JVM or other heavy run times really does affect what programs you can run and what programs you can’t.
Adam: I think like I remember Denys talking about this before, like if you look at Spark or something, they end up just doing manual memory management using some tricks.
Richard: Yeah. I mean, Spark is such a fascinating use case. I use Spark a ton and I’ve used it for years. I was doing like Spark consulting and working, struggling with Spark jobs and getting them to run a lot of times. I think in some ways it is really fascinating how much Spark still relies on on-heap storage, which has pros and cons. But one of the cons of it in practice is that when a Spark job approaches the maximum amount of memory in heap available, either on a single-node or even worse on across all the nodes, really the whole system starts to fall apart. The classic thing that’ll happen in really any data-intensive JVM program, is that once your heap gets really maxed out, your garbage collector will start imposing long, stop-the-world pauses. And while that’s happening and you’ll miss some kind of heartbeat or some other kind of distributed systems timeout that your cluster is using for coordination.
And then once you start missing heartbeats, the cluster starts breaking apart and thrashing, and then it’s all downhill from there. So it’s not like you can’t even push the system to the limits of its capacity without breaking all of the networking and distributed systems components. Whereas I think using off-heap memory, whether you’re in the JVM or not for distributed systems has a lot of benefits for data-intensive distributed systems. But also like it’s really, really hard to do that right. The JVM really gets in your way over and over trying to do things like this.
And for me, what’s really magical about Scala Native is that it’s relatively straightforward. I can write up a short sort of blog posts length article, or chapter and show people how to do it. It’s not like, oh, you have to study this in grad school for six months sort of advanced technique. I feel like it just makes it so much more approachable and I’m hoping it makes it possible for us as a community to build libraries that have these sort of more robust and elegant behaviors when handling intense amounts of data, honestly.
Adam: It’s interesting like Scala is a very un-opinionated language, I guess some people would say. Except in one particular domain which is that it has to be garbage collected. So that’s the one constraint that’s been thrown away now.
Richard: Well, it’s interesting because it’s garbage collected and it isn’t. The thing that I think is subtle and that comes with practice with Scala Native is being able to sort of keep these two universes in your head. You have one universe of regular Scala objects that are garbage collected. You have all of the immutable data structures and four loops all of the niceties of real Scala. But then you also have the option of using these manually managed pointers and off-heap data structures, structs and arrays which the garbage collector doesn’t touch. And I think if it were all manual memory, I think it would be Scala Native would be just as hard to program as C, frankly. It would be a step backwards.
For me, really the magic is having garbage collection, all the idioms of regular Scala, but then being able to manage manually my handful of large custom data structures for the critical paths of a program. And sort of finding balance between these two domains, I think is really where the art is, I think where I’m still evolving certainly.
Mixing GC and off heap
Adam: It’s an interesting point, though I guess we probably didn’t make clear. So Scala Native can be used just like Go or something, right? Go is native and garbage collected and that’s about it. But, also with Scala Native, you can bring in the standard C library and then you can start doing manual memory management, programming like it’s 1995 or whatever.
Richard: Yeah, that’s a really good distinction to make. Go is a really good example of a native, relatively high-level language that has a garbage collector and has good ergonomics. And I think Scala Native is competitive at a lot of the same things Go does. And in some ways Go might be a better direct comparison for Scala Native than Rust in some ways. The other thing that I compare it to a lot, which might be a little more obscure would be Standard ML or OCaml, which are somewhat more academic functional programming languages. But are also strict languages like Scala, have great immutable data structures like Scala, have awesome garbage collectors like Scala Native and so on.
But in practice, I don’t think there’s a lot of folks out there who’ve experienced doing systems programming in modern high-level like functional, capable language like this. Scala Native is sort of the first a lot of people have heard of this sort of style. And I guess that’s what my book is really about, and trying to just show people this whole different way of writing both native code, that’s much closer to the machine, but also with all of the quality of life and niceties of just writing regular Scala too.
Adam: Yeah. So sort of you’re… Like I could imagine that just your sort of tight, inner loop performance critical parts might be something you might want to manually manage?
Richard: Yeah, exactly. And then you would use regular Scala collections and strings and all those niceties for configuration, for networking. I mean, it’s always going to be a balance and when you’re at the point where you’re writing a program which has specialized performance needs every program like that is going to be unique in some ways. So it’s always the experience and judgment you have of which is the tight inner loop I actually need to optimize. In some cases that’s obvious if you’re sorting four gigabytes of data it’s the sorting. But in real world programs, it’s not always that clear cut. Which is definitely a challenge for this kind of programming I’d say.
The C standard library
Adam: So your book is called Modern Systems Programming and spend some time on the C standard library. Why should we be interested in it?
Richard: Yeah. I called it Modern Systems Programming to contrast it with the books I learned C systems programming from. The one that’s closest to my heart is the Steven A. Rigo, Advanced Programming in the UNIX Environment which is the size of a brick and like a large brick, not a little trick, but it’s a great book. One of the best technical books I own, and it’s totally encyclopedic like everything you can do and see what the UNIX OS kernels in there basically. But it doesn’t even cover networking. If you want to do anything involving networking, there is not one but two additional brick-sized books also by Stevens on networking in the UNIX environment and C, which again are encyclopedic and amazing. But it’s just so alien from the way we write code now, where everything is on the network, you make rest calls at the drop of a hat, everything is a server. It’s not reasonable to say, well, if you want to write close to the metal, you need to read these three brick-sized books.
So the approach that my book takes is that we introduce the fundamental C system calls you need to work with data to allocate memory and to do basic TCP networking, really early. We fly through some like small lightweight programs that exercise them. And we’re really bootstrapped to the point where you can write from scratch without any support libraries, a simple HTTP client, or a really simple, but rugged HTTP server within the first 100 pages of the book or so. And I guess that’s what I mean with the modern approach is that I’m not treating networking as an obscure advanced topic. I’m really just putting it out there in front because it’s absolutely critical to every program we write nowadays.
Building a webserver from scratch
Adam: Yeah. It’s a different perspective. So I’m a Scala developer, at my work there are people who are C programmers. I don’t feel like we always speak the same language and then it’s interesting, in your book you’re like, “Let’s build a web server in Scala. So first, let’s look at how you listen for a socket using the standard C library.” Like that is not the approach I would normally take if writing?
Richard: No. Yeah. I sometimes have some ambivalence about that kind of presentation because this added like I think a lot of books would say, “Oh, just use this library HTTPserver.sirport80 or whatever. And that’s certainly the right way to build a web server at work. You don’t want to write a web server framework from scratch for your job, and you don’t want to have to maintain someone else’s from scratch web server ever. I think we’ve all been in situations where we’ve had to support sort of gratuitously DIY code that someone has done. And I think we all know the downsides of that.
For me, the reason to embrace that gratuitous DIY spirit in the book is, first of all, it’s a way to get the reader really intimately comfortable with exactly what the operating system does and is responsible for, both to show how much there is but also in some ways how little there is. And then to demystify the libraries and frameworks we use for this everyday. Because it is somewhat insane to write an HTTP server from scratch, but then you realize, Oh, I can write an HTP server that can handle a couple hundred or a couple of thousand requests a second in less than 200 lines of code. And if you realize that’s within reach for any Scala developer, really, I feel like it opens up so many things.
It makes it a lot more believable that we could write new pure Scala libraries that replace things from the JVM like [neti 00:34:33], right? That we’re unlikely to ever be able to port to see. So maybe that’s the sort of oblique strategy of the DIY approach is that, it really just opens up the possibility of building this new ecosystem and I hope this better and simpler ecosystem, than the sort of JVM environment that Scala sort of bootstrapped itself upon.
Adam: Yeah. I love the approach. I picture you playing around with Scala Native and you’re like, okay, you want to use whatever neti and you can’t. And so you turned around and you have your three giant brick books and you’re like, well, I know how to open a socket and you’re just coding away. So is this an attitude that’s lacking in the high-level language world?
Gratuitous DIY and the dependency crisis
Richard: You know, I’m hesitant to even generalize about the high-level language world in general, what I would say is that I think there’s probably a crisis across software development about dependencies and libraries. And a lot of the really serious examples of this come from like Node.js and the NPM ecosystem, right? Where if one library gets taken down or compromised like left pad or events stream hundreds or thousands of upstream libraries and any number of large serious projects can get harmed. And I think it comes from this notion that it’s easier and faster to grab a library off the shelf for every possible need we might have. And maybe this is me editorializing or getting a little bit cranky. In fact, I’m sure this is me editorializing or getting a bit cranky.
Adam: Run with it. Run it.
Richard: Yeah, no, I’m not sure that many of the things we use libraries for are that hard. And maybe we should consider the possibility of having programs that are a little more self-contained and that don’t necessarily rely on 100 or 200 dependencies to tick every possible box. I’m a big fan of writing software that is simpler and sort of more rugged or more performant that can be relied on. And sometimes it means taking a different approach to that. It can also mean thinking more about infrastructure and how your code is going to be deployed and figuring out how to rely on infrastructure to solve a problem. And just thinking about this whole life cycle of your code and the environment it lives in and what it does and what it doesn’t need to do.
Adam: So what do you mean by that?
Adam: Mm-hmm (affirmative).
So it’s this really fascinating model where it allows you to write really simple code. Because I already had like an HTP client in Scala Native from the book, in fact. So I took that and I added about 20 lines of additional Scala code to just hit the two endpoints, basically in a loop and that was it. That’s all it takes to like provide an AWS Lambda runtime now, because there’s this beautiful synergy between a really streamlined interface and really sophisticated and elegant infrastructure and API design.
Adam: So some of it is that our dependencies can be services rather than actual libraries, is that?
Richard: Yeah. That’s a really great way to put it, that instead of having dependencies on 15 libraries with 15 different interfaces. If your dependency is a service, then you might only need to implement one protocol to work with all of your different dependencies.
on Containers vs JVM
Adam: An interesting thing is containers, so the JVM sort of is an early type of containerization in a way, right? It’s a little VM that runs the same everywhere. And now, like I regularly am shipping to production JVM processes that run inside of containers.
Richard: Yeah. And it’s really interesting how that there’s a bit of an impedance mismatch there and that so much of the complexity of Java as an ecosystem is built around things like runtime class loading, with the ability presumably to swap versions of an application in and out within a larger like mothership grade Java, like super server but it’s hosting lots of such applications. And now with containers we’ve accepted, and I think pretty happily adopted sort of shipping these immutable artifacts for all of our code. But we sort of still are paying the memory overhead and the runtime complexity of this virtual machine that’s designed with honestly, much more sophisticated capacities that we just aren’t using.
Using the operating system
Adam: You’re a fan of the operating system.
Richard: I don’t know if… I mean a fan? I guess I have an interest in the operating system. I can complain about the design of any particular operating system for days. Linux can be a pain to work with. Linux is also amazing, but there are parts of it that can be a pain. I mean, from writing this book and trying to explain even like basic UNIX socket APIs, like I could go on about how poorly designed some of the socket APIs are. And like how little sense some of it makes if you try to write down how it works. And that was something I really struggled with.
So it’s not as much that I’m a fan of it, it’s more I feel that it’s real and it’s there. And the more we try to abstract over it, we’ll both one, our abstractions will get messy. The underlying details will leak because they inevitably do. And then it will be end up working with a sort of unpredictable and not really performant abstraction that’s probably worse in every respect than working with the underlying, somewhat poorly designed operating system interface in the first place.
Adam: Yeah. Like I feel like probably rightfully so, you may more than others solve a architecture problem by leaning on the resources that the operating system provides. So recently I was like downloading, I was using a wget to like scrape some websites and then it was slow. So I wanted to run like multiple in parallel, I like looked at the documentation and it’s like, just keep starting it up, but the same arguments. So I saw that as an example, they were coordinating just by, before it downloaded a page I think it creates the file. So then if there’s multiple instances, they just move on. So this type of design maybe is less common where you are utilizing what the operating system provides?
Richard: Yeah. I think that’s a really great example actually, just because like if you did that with a shell script, you can run that pretty ridiculously fast just because shell scripts are great for spawning like dozens of processes and parallel. Whereas every modern high-level pleasant to use programming language doesn’t expose multi-process programming elegantly or at all, in fact. We all are used to threads, where you have multiple contexts of execution, potentially multiple CPUs going at once within the same sort of memory address space. But actually having multiple separate processes running within a single logical program in some sense is actually a little more alien. And it’s something I do get into precisely because it opens up things like spawning 15 wget or curl instances or something like that.
Learning to lean on the OS
Adam: Yeah. But where do we learn about those? Like besides your book, do we just have to go to your three tomes of UNIX system program?
Richard: I mean, those are great, actually are a lot of really good resources online for stuff like this. [inaudible 00:44:50] Guide to C covers a huge amount of this stuff, and UNIX sockets, memory management for multi-process programming. The actual Linux man pages for this stuff are also really, really good. And I spent a lot of quality time with them while trying to write a book about this. There’s a few somewhat older programming languages that have good support for a lot of these multi-process programming techniques. And just for like sort of UNIX-style programming in general. I guess they’re not even that old, but Python and Ruby both have a slightly closer affinity to C and to the operating system than like Java or Go do in some sense. So like Gary Bernhardt has a lot of really great podcasts where he does pretty similar kind of low-level systems programming to what I do in Ruby. And just write stuff from scratch, using basic C system calls.
Because Ruby also has a pretty good, obviously untyped CFI and then Python actually can be pretty good for aggressive multi-process and off-heap data structures. You can do some pretty cool stuff with their multi-process and like numeric computing libraries, where you can have multiple processes with isolated stay, mounting a shared memory map, a giant array and editor, stuff like that. That’s probably where I picked up a lot of these techniques originally for the more aggressive process and the off-heap stuff actually.
Adam: Very cool. Yeah. I mean the JVM, I guess we’ve been bagging on it, but it’s quite performant generally. So it’s not often where I have to reach. Like I could see why Ruby, maybe you’re more likely to have to do some FFI.
Richard: I mean, and that’s a really good thing to call out and I love the JVM. The JVM is great. The quality of the JVMs just-in-time compiler it’s a really phenomenal piece of human engineering. It’s so good for so many things and I’m not hating on it. I think it’s more like I have qualms about it’s applicability to the situation we find ourselves in. Maybe it doesn’t fit that well with containers, maybe it doesn’t fit that well with really large on-heap data structures. Maybe it’s not perfect for latency sensitive distributed systems. Those are sort of the angles that I find myself sort of pushing against the limits of the JVM if that makes sense.
Glibc is a challenge
Adam: Yeah, no, it totally makes sense. And yeah, I think containers for certain are the way forward so yeah, I don’t know what that says long-term for the JVM. You see a lot of new languages are native. One thing I noticed was that the standard C stuff that you inter-op with, like some of it by my maybe more modern tastes seem somewhat insane. I don’t know.
Richard: To use the technical term. No, it’s really true. The there’s this particular technique called a type pun where you have types that are genuinely unrelated to each other, have totally different structures, different sizes, and in some cases you’ll have types like the sock adder type, which nominally exists and has a size of like 14 bytes, but you can’t actually instantiate it. Because there is no generic instance of a socket address, instead you do things like you allocate an IPv4 or an IPv6 address, which will be twice or four times as large. And then you just cast it down to this other much smaller data type and pass it into a system call and that’s terrifying, right?
Any irrational person doing that would, “Oh, my God, the system is going to chop off the last eight bytes of this thing I just passed in when I cast it or it’s going to overflow or something else.” Because certainly anytime you’re working with C you’re going to be scared of overflowing pointers. And when you have these basic foundational APIs that require you to do unsafe casts that are effectively overflowing buffers going into the kernel, it’s sort of horrifying, but this is how everything works. It’s all of this.
But you know, a lot of that has historical reasons. The post six socket API, I think mostly got written and mostly implemented around 1981, 1982 which is a really long time ago, it’s close to 30 years now, right?
Adam: Mm-hmm (affirmative).
Richard: And it actually, doesn’t quite predate like modern NCC, the sort of standardized modern C we all know and love. But it sort of came into being around the same time, and a lot of the implementations didn’t have access even to a full compliance standards C implementation. And what that meant was that some of the nicer features C has like C has union types, which are a more clean and sort of type safe way to represent sort of related types and the same that’ll slot into the same memory space. It’s not quite as elegant as C old trait and Scala, or like subtyping in a LOP language. But it fulfills the similar role in a modern C program.
So there’s a saying that the C language has, and it just wasn’t there or wasn’t stable enough in time that a lot of these legacy APIs got, which is both a little terrifying, but also maybe it’s encouraged. Like we have all these new systems programming languages coming up, people are writing new virtual machine monitors and new operating systems and things like Rust and Go even. And I think if people can write these things and certainly in a garbage collected language like Go, the notion of using Scala Native are sort of real, deep and like low-level implementations of some of these primitive facilities, it starts to get really exciting. It makes you wonder what could we do if we tried to implement a fundamentally sane network protocols, for example. Might not be something we have yet.
Adam: Yeah. So it does seem like an opportunity. I can see what you’re saying like just Scala Native could have a wrapper around whatever string copy and it could provide a little bit of sanity.
Richard: Yeah. And if you might be able to find a sweet spot where you provide more sanity than C does, but you don’t have the overhead insanity that like the Java string API introduces. I think what I’m finding from writing this book is there is a sweet spot, in fact, that’s much closer to the metal, but also much saner than what some really smart person designed in a hurry 30 or 40 years ago.
Adam: Yeah. And we have more expressive languages, better compilers now, like a lot more validation can be done.
Richard: Yeah. It’s very true.
Adam: I think that that’s probably most of my questions. Let me take a look here. Is there anything that we didn’t cover that you’d like to talk about?
Richard: Not that I can think of off the top of my head. I really appreciate you giving me the chance to talk about all this stuff.
Adam: Yeah. It’s interesting. I think I’m not a system’s programmer and I like the approach of the book because it’s easier for me to take in than reading something in C, I suppose. Like it’s just that I’m used to Scala.
Richard: Yeah. Like this book, it’s not a reference in the way that one of the brick-sized homes is, but I hope it does open this up to more people than some of these older, larger scarier books do. So that’s really good to hear.
Adam: Awesome. Thank you for your time, Richard, it’s been fun.
Richard: Yeah. Adam, this has been awesome. Thank you so much.
Adam: That was the show. Thank you for listening to the CoRecursive Podcast. I’m Adam Gordon Bell, your host. If you liked the show, tell a friend about it to help spread the word, or you can join our Slack channel or spray paint our website on the back of a bus or maybe not that one. This month on the CoRecursive Slack channel, there’s been some interesting talks, user graph_blow_worst, great name by the way, has been working on an interesting project, Scala Z schema, and he has volunteered to explain context-free algebras to our group. I have no idea what those are, but hopefully it will soon.
I looked at some of his PRs and it’s a bit above my head. So I always have more to learn, but I promised I would give him a shout out in the podcast. Also user Joe, nice short name. He’s been asking questions about learning functional program and he’s been learning an F#. And now he’s dabbling a little in Scala and trying to get the feel for what is the best language to kind of learn some functional programming. So these are the types of discussions happening in the CoRecursive Slack channel check it out, until next time.