This means that many standard types in Go implements either io.Reader and/or io.Writer. That's neat. The implicit interface implementation is definitely a language feature, and the libraries are making good use of it.

(That is not to say, you could not do the same in other languages, but you would have to specify the interface they implement rather than just adding a method with a specific layout.[0])

[0] I am not remembering the right term right now.

Close is a particularly good example. One need only look at C#'s IDisposable to see that it does, in fact, work well. A mock might noop it, another class might close an FD, and yet another might make an RPC call.

I agree that interfaces tend to have fairly narrow family tree. And, by this narrowness, there's little ambiguity about what T GetById(id int) means. As the tree expands, which happens with implicit interfaces, ambiguity is more likely. Nevertheless, there's a fairly large common vocabulary that we'd all largely agree on. Closer, Reader, Writer, Logger, etc. Even in more complex ones, I see little risk of confusion, say, http.ResponseWriter. And, something that I've noticed from Go (which I never did in C# or Java), is the tendency to favor very small interfaces, which ends up being pretty awesome.

That aside, consider that implicit interfaces allow the consumer to define the interface. For example, you create a library that has a concrete struct called MyStruct with a method called DoStuff(). You define no interface because you don't need one.

I, a consumer of your library, need an interface because in some cases I'm using your MyStruct to DoStuff and in other cases, I'm using my own implementation. So I create an interface, define DoStuff(), and BAM!, your structure now implements my interface. I don't have to change your code.

Sure, the workaround is to wrap your structure in my own which implements the interface. But how, in this case, is the implicit interface not a huge win?

Maybe, as you say, it'll screw over people who use it poorly. For everyone else, I see no drawbacks.

Haskell's typeclasses work around this by letting you define "how a type implements an interface" at either the definition of the interface or the definition of the type. (Or, strictly, anywhere else both are in scope - but that gets messy for a few reasons, so it's discouraged and GHC warns about "orphan instances" unless you tell it not to.)

That's not a problem with Go's module system. If someone is using your library, and wants to use your interface in a particular package, that's fine. If they want to use another library, with another interface of the same name in another package, that's also fine.

If they want to use both libraries in the same client package, they'll have to locally rename one or both of the imports.

Here's a container interface. It has a sort() method, which sorts the elements of the container.

Here's a different container interface. It's got a method that tells you what kind of concrete container you have, so you can understand how expensive actions like insert and sort are going to be. But the author was from England, and so called that method "sort".

You can see how that's going to (fail to) work out when you define a "sortable" interface...

Traditional (but even more contrived) examples include "draw" and "fire" doing unexpected things when applied to a gun as opposed to an image or an employee.

First, you really have to split this up into two distinct cases.

The most powerful/useful is when you create an interface in your package for a structure in a different package. It's been years since I've done .NET or Java, but I remember frequently cursing a library developer (often someone at Microsoft or Sun) for exposing a concrete type instead of an interface. In this case, I don't see any downside. Creating a:

type Render interface { Draw() }

And then using my (or someone else's) Gun structure, is no different than using the Gun structure directly and expecting it to render itself to the screen rather than come out of its holster. The interface buys you the level of indirection, but whether you use the interface or the concrete type, it's up to you to know WTF Draw() does.

This first approach is well explained at [1]

In the second case, where a library expects an interface, I agree there's a risk:

// 3rd party package package fastRender

type Drawable interface { Draw() }

func Render(d Drawable) { ... }

// my code: fastRender.Render(new(Gun))

I've lost some degree or type checking. Since my Gun's Draw doesn't explicitly implement fastRender.Drawable, maybe I'm trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. There's nothing the compiler can do to help either.

It sounds a bit like an academic concern to me. Is this something that's actually bitten people in the ass? How is it different than any method that takes primitives? I can pass a []byte of a bitmap to a Music player's Play(data []byte) method...

[1] https://medium.com/@rakyll/interface-pollution-in-go-7d58bcc...

There's also a subtle third case - I import two libraries. One of them defines Drawable, the other has something that looks like it implements Drawable. But it's just happened upon the same signature, and makes different assumptions. Maybe it even says it implements Drawable - but a different Drawable defined in a third library.

As I've said all along, I don't know how often these things are hit in practice. I think so far go development has been comparatively centralized, and so it might be seen less often than it would if it were used everywhere, but that might still be rare enough to not be a problem.

It doesn't seem like a high probability that this would happen on accident, though it might be possible to contrive an example.

I'll have to think about that.

One could possibly force the issue by including an unused function with a deliberately unique name (supports_interface_foo, or maybe a UUID or both) as part of the interface. Can functions added later fill parts of interfaces? If so, this approach would make the situation roughly that of Haskell typeclasses. If not, then this approach makes the situation roughly that of Java interfaces. In either case, it might be appropriate to some pickier interfaces.

You could include the name of the interface as part of the method name, though. But the downside of that approach is, if another interface wants to re-use the same method, things get awkward...

My point was implicit, exceptional simple interfaces are sorta magic. They are effortless, and because they are implicit, there is no harm in creating a 1 function interface (or 10 of them). Because your caller is never going to have to do an ... Implements ThingA, ThingB, ThingC, ThingD, ThingE, Thi... it implicitly supports an interface if it fulfills the signature.

So your interfaces end up being tiny (just what you need) and pervasive. This means the way your system ends up working tends to be far more aligned along interfaces than anything else.

When I speak of composition (in this case the composition of functions) I am speaking of the ability to use functions together rather freely and with little effort. This is a bit hard to explain, but it feels a bit like a modern shell, you can wire together lots of commands (functions), from lots of places that have no awareness of each other with the pipe | operator. In Go, simple, minimalistic interfaces act as the glue and let you compose lots of diverse functions together exceptionally quickly.