I use golang (aka “go”) a lot for my day-to-day work. Like other programming languages, it consists of a core language spec, describing, for instance, how to declare variables, construct loops, etc., plus a standard library that implements higher-level functionality needed for software that actually does useful things.

The go standard library is fairly rich- in addition to basic input/output, it covers HTTP client and server implementations, time and date processing, all of the standard cryptographic algorithms (e.g., SHA256), data compression and decompression, and lots of other goodies. However, there are certain pieces of functionality that are either missing or insufficient and that, as a result, require the use of third-party libraries in nearly all of my projects.

In this post, I want to go through the main “batteries not included” in the standard library, and the alternatives that I typically use for each one. Note that I’m not covering missing language features like generics since those have been discussed extensively in other forums.

Aside: What do batteries have to do with programming languages?

The term “batteries not included” was historically stamped on the boxes of electronic toys and other consumer goods to indicate that the batteries needed for the item to work were not provided in the box. When I was growing up, I remember getting gifts where the giver forgot to buy the batteries. I would then feverishly run around the house looking for instances of the right kind (either AA, AAA, C, D, or 9-volt) and raid my other toys or our TV remote controls as needed.

The phrase is less common today because items often include batteries in the box or they use built-in, rechargeable ones.

In any case, at some point the Python programming language adopted the term “batteries included” to describe its standard library. This was a cheeky way of saying that unlike those cheap toys from childhood, you didn’t need to build or bring extra items (i.e., libraries or tools) to make the language useful- it just worked “out of the box”.

Nowadays, the idea of including a rich, fully functional standard library with a programming language is pretty common. When Python was initially released in the early 1990’s, however, this was considered quite revolutionary- the main languages at the time (e.g., C) did not have very big standard libraries; if you wanted to do anything beyond the basics, you had to write it yourself or import a third-party implementation.

The “batteries included” philosophy for standard libraries has become common because it has a lot of benefits:

  1. It’s easier to get started in the language- no need to find, evaluate, and import third-party libraries for common use cases
  2. It’s easier to distribute your code- people can just compile and/or run it with standard tooling
  3. Code is more standardized- if everyone uses the standard library for something (e.g., making HTTP requests), then you’re unlikely to see lots of different implementations for it
  4. Maintenance is less of a burden- standard libraries tend to be well-maintained and regularly patched for security issues. You don’t have to worry about the maintainer(s) disappearing and the library accumulating a large bug backlog.

Unfortunately, there isn’t always agreement on which batteries to include and exactly how they should work. Also, including too many things can lead to bloat, making the core language harder to maintain and distribute. There are complex design and performance tradeoffs here, and as result no language is 100% “batteries included” for 100% of use cases.

The missing batteries

Now that we’ve reviewed what “batteries (not) included” means, let’s go into what I consider the main missing batteries in the go standard library.


Many of the applications that I write in go are command-line tools that use flags for specifying options, e.g. mytool --option1=value1 --option2=value2.

Golang includes a flag package in its standard library for defining and parsing these flags. However, it’s pretty basic as it has no built-in support for accepting “complex” types like lists or time durations. Also, for whatever reason, it uses single dashes instead of double dashes for long flags- like most people (I think?), I find --help more canonical than -help when interacting with a command-line tool.

As a result, the first thing I import when I’m creating a new command-line tool in go is a better flag library. Unfortunately, there isn’t a consistent standard on what to use here instead. I originally used kingpin, but then switched to cobra a few years ago because that seemed to be more common in the code bases I was working on.

Recently, I discovered segmentio/cli, which I like a lot because it’s so simple- you just tag a struct, and then you get the flag functionality for free:

func main() {
    type config struct {
        Age int          `flag:"--age"     help:"your age"     default:"55"`
        Hobbies []string `flag:"--hobby"   help:"your hobbies" default:"-"`
        Name string      `flag:"-n,--name" help:"your name"    default:"Joe"`

            func(config config) {
                fmt.Printf("Hello %s!\n", config.Name)

This works well for simple CLIs, but becomes a little messy for more complicated ones, e.g. when the help text blurbs are really long or when you want to have multiple layers of subcommands. Therefore, I still find myself reverting back to cobra sometimes.


Log output, whether to the console or to an external log collection service, is really important for understanding what’s going on in an application. As with flags, golang includes a log package, but it’s quite basic and insufficient for many use cases. Among other problems, it doesn’t support log levels (e.g., INFO vs. DEBUG) or structured output formats like JSON.

As with flags, there isn’t really a standard alternative here. I personally like logrus a lot and include it in all of the tools I build. Using it is as simple as importing the library and then calling log.Infof, log.Debugf, etc. in place of the standard library’s log.Printf:

import (
    log "github.com/sirupsen/logrus"

func myFunc(myArg string) {
    log.Debugf("Starting myFunc with myArg %s", myArg)
    if err != nil {
        log.Warnf("Got an unexpected error: %+v", err)

In addition to supporting levels better than the standard log library, it also exposes a lot of controls over the output format.

There are many other choices here, and some of these may be better than logrus depending on your requirements. At Segment (my current employer), we use segmentio/events in most of our backend systems. This library makes it easier to include structured key/value pairs alongside the primary message for each log. The former aren’t super useful for command-line tools but can be very helpful when trying to filter gigabytes of logs produced by replicated, remote systems.

Test assertions

Go contains decent, built-in tooling for executing tests. However, it doesn’t include any of the “assert” functions that are common in the unit testing libraries of other languages. This means that a simple test that two slices are equal looks like:

if !reflect.DeepEqual(expected, actual) {
        "Wrong value for my special slice",
        "expected", expected,
        "got", actual,

Thankfully, you can avoid this messiness by using stretchr/testify. With testify’s assert package, the above becomes much more concise:

assert.Equal(t, expected, actual, "My special slice")

There’s also a require package that has the same interface as assert, but will stop the test execution if the condition isn’t met.

I use testify without exception in any project that is doing unit tests. It seems weird to me that some people still prefer the canonical manual check followed by a t.Error message, but to each their own!

YAML parsing

Go includes a fully functional package for handling JSON-formatted data but, like Python, doesn’t have any equivalent for YAML in its standard library. Many of the tools that I’ve worked on have some sort of human-created config file, and it’s much easier on users if these are YAML instead of JSON.

The standard here is go-yaml, which has the same interface as the standard json library but uses special yaml struct tags instead of json ones. Personally, though, I prefer ghodss/yaml, which wraps the former, because it supports json-compatible tags and thus makes everything more consistent.

Static content embedding

Addendum: Golang 1.16 finally added built-in embedding support. Yay!!! However, I’ll keep this section here for historical reasons.

One of the nice things about golang is that your entire program can be compiled into a single, self-contained binary. Among other benefits, this makes it easier to distribute your application or run it in bare-bones environments (e.g., scratch docker containers).

Unfortunately, though, the standard go tooling only handles go code. It won’t include separate static assets like text templates and images in your binary. I commonly use the former, in conjunction with go’s excellent text/template package, to generate HTML documents or YAML configs in my tools.

To get around this, there’s a great tool called go-bindata that will automatically read these external assets and embed them into a .go file that can be included in your binary. It then exposes an API for fetching the contents of each asset from your code.

The original creator of the tool, jteeuwen, stopped maintaining it and then completely disappeared off Github a few years ago, which caused the proliferation of multiple, not-fully-compatible forks. Thankfully, it seems like the community has standardized on this one, which hopefully will be actively maintained going forward.


Golang is great for many use cases, but you’ll probably want to bring in third-party libraries for some things like flags, logging, and testing. It would be great if these were improved in the standard library, but I’m not holding my breath- from what I’ve heard, the go maintainers are pretty adamant about what’s in the standard library and what’s not. Thankfully, the third-party solutions are pretty good at filling in the gaps.