Show HN: Write your BPF programs in Go, not C(github.com) |
Show HN: Write your BPF programs in Go, not C(github.com) |
> gc, the Go compiler, has no LLVM-based BPF backend. Adding one is a multi-year compiler project. rustc is built on LLVM and that's why Aya works. So gobee emits C and reuses clang's BPF backend, which gives us mature codegen, BTF, and CO-RE relocations for free.
I wonder if TinyGo (https://tinygo.org/) might be a better fit here:
> TinyGo brings the Go programming language to embedded systems and to the modern web by creating a new compiler based on LLVM.
I've not played with TinyGo much so would be interested to hear other peoples experiences.
I'm not really sure why you'd want to use this. If you're writing eBPF, you already need to know how to read C kernel source.
Personally I would choose Rust as well, but I would choose Rust for almost everything I do. I can see why a Go developer would want a similar experience.
This is why National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA) guidance is the following:
> Acronyms often confuse readers. Avoid them whenever possible. If an acronym is necessary for future reference, spell the full word and follow with the acronym in parentheses on the first reference. For example, The General Services Administration (GSA).
https://nasa.github.io/content-guide/abbreviations-and-acron...
There is also this longer memo on the NASA Technical Reports Server: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19950025292
So I can't blame the project's author for the lack of explanation about what BPF is. Particularly when it's just someone's personal project.
And before anyone complains about this comment: I do think the GP is completely fair in asking for clarification as to what BPF is too. There sometimes seems to be backlash on HN against people asking for a term to be explained. This comment isn't that.
Not quite as much as Radar or Laser, but halfway there.
Here you go: https://github.com/pratyushanand/learn-bpf
~On the other hand, BPF means different things in different domains, and isn't ubiquitous in the same way~
Edit: I should have written it out, that's on me :-)
My first thought would have been Band-Pass Filter, which is also a filter potentially related to computer systems.
I work in an industry with a lot of Three-Letter Acronyms (TLAs) and eXtended Three-Letter Acronyms (XTLAs) (sometimes known as Four-Letter Acronyms (FLAs)), and there they are often overloaded in their meanings. So in my experience, being clear about the definition is helpful to readers so they can immediately understand the document without having to triangulate meanings from the rest of the document.
Anyone who might need this would already know what BPF is. And anyone who isn't familiar with the term BPF in this context wouldn't be the target audience for this.
It's also worth noting that BPF isn't ever referred to in it's non-acronym form. Literally no-one in the field calls this "Berkeley Packet Filter". Just like nobody calls PHP "PHP: Hypertext Processor" (or whatever backronym they've decided on this week), nor SQL as Structured Query Language. The name for this technically literally is just referred to as "BPF".
So while I agree with your point in general -- it's not really a fair complaint in this specific occurrence.
And it's been explained on HN exactly what it is. So problem solved.
By the way, I noticed you didn't follow your own recommendation for the "RF" acronym in your comment. Nor "NASA" in your first reply. Perhaps you should check your own comments before you criticize others for doing the same.
Maybe you should also leave a comment in the Mullvad story (currently #1 on HN) that nobody has explained the VPN acronym there. Likewise for the threads where people reminisce about BASIC, of which there have been many lately. They're also only obvious if you already know the subject matter.