Why have arrays in Go? - arrays

Question

I understand the difference between arrays and slices in Go. But what I don't understand is why it is helpful to have arrays at all. Why is it helpful that an array type definition specifies a length and an element type? Why can't every "array" that we use be a slice?

Answer 1

There is more to arrays than just the fixed length: they are comparable, and they are values (not reference or pointer types).
There are countless advantages of arrays over slices in certain situations, all of which together more than justify the existence of arrays (along with slices). Let's see them. (I'm not even counting arrays being the building blocks of slices.)
1. Being comparable means you can use arrays as keys in maps, but not slices. Yes, you could say now that why not make slices comparable then, so that this alone wouldn't justify the existence of both. Equality is not well defined on slices. FAQ: Why don't maps allow slices as keys?
They don't implement equality because equality is not well defined on such types; there are multiple considerations involving shallow vs. deep comparison, pointer vs. value comparison, how to deal with recursive types, and so on.
2. Arrays can also give you higher compile-time safety, as the index bounds can be checked at compile time (array length must evaluate to a non-negative constant representable by a value of type int):
s := make([]int, 3)
s[3] = 3 // "Only" a runtime panic: runtime error: index out of range
a := [3]int{}
a[3] = 3 // Compile-time error: invalid array index 3 (out of bounds for 3-element array)
3. Also passing around or assigning array values will implicitly make a copy of the entire array, so it will be "detached" from the original value. If you pass a slice, it will still make a copy but just of the slice header, but the slice value (the header) will point to the same backing array. This may or may not be what you want. If you want to "detach" a slice from the "original" one, you have to explicitly copy the content e.g. with the builtin copy() function to a new slice.
a := [2]int{1, 2}
b := a
b[0] = 10 // This only affects b, a will remain {1, 2}
sa := []int{1, 2}
sb := sa
sb[0] = 10 // Affects both sb and sa
4. Also since the array length is part of the array type, arrays with different length are distinct types. On one hand this may be a "pain in the ass" (e.g. you write a function which takes a parameter of type [4]int, you can't use that function to take and process an array of type [5]int), but this may also be an advantage: this may be used to explicitly specify the length of the array that is expected. E.g. you want to write a function which takes an IPv4 address, it can be modeled with the type [4]byte. Now you have a compile-time guarantee that the value passed to your function will have exactly 4 bytes, no more and no less (which would be an invalid IPv4 address anyway).
5. Related to the previous, the array length may also serve a documentation purpose. A type [4]byte properly documents that IPv4 has 4 bytes. An rgb variable of type [3]byte tells there are 1 byte for each color components. In some cases it is even taken out and is available, documented separately; for example in the crypto/md5 package: md5.Sum() returns a value of type [Size]byte where md5.Size is a constant being 16: the length of an MD5 checksum.
6. They are also very useful when planning memory layout of struct types, see JimB's answer here, and this answer in greater detail and real-life example.
7. Also since slices are headers and they are (almost) always passed around as-is (without pointers), the language spec is more restrictive regarding pointers to slices than pointers to arrays. For example the spec provides multiple shorthands for operating with pointers to arrays, while the same gives compile-time error in case of slices (because it's rare to use pointers to slices, if you still want / have to do it, you have to be explicit about handling it; read more in this answer).
Such examples are:
Slicing a p pointer to array: p[low:high] is a shorthand for (*p)[low:high]. If p is a pointer to slice, this is compile-time error (spec: Slice expressions).
Indexing a p pointer to array: p[i] is a shorthand for (*p)[i]. If p is pointer to a slice, this is a compile time error (spec: Index expressions).
Example:
pa := &[2]int{1, 2}
fmt.Println(pa[1:1]) // OK
fmt.Println(pa[1]) // OK
ps := &[]int{3, 4}
println(ps[1:1]) // Error: cannot slice ps (type *[]int)
println(ps[1]) // Error: invalid operation: ps[1] (type *[]int does not support indexing)
8. Accessing (single) array elements is more efficient than accessing slice elements; as in case of slices the runtime has to go through an implicit pointer dereference. Also "the expressions len(s) and cap(s) are constants if the type of s is an array or pointer to an array".
May be suprising, but you can even write:
type IP [4]byte
const x = len(IP{}) // x will be 4
It's valid, and is evaluated and compile-time even though IP{} is not a constant expression so e.g. const i = IP{} would be a compile-time error! After this, it's not even surprising that the following also works:
const x2 = len((*IP)(nil)) // x2 will also be 4
Note: When ranging over a complete array vs a complete slice, there may be no performance difference at all as obviously it may be optimized so that the pointer in the slice header is only dereferenced once. For details / example, see Array vs Slice: accessing speed.
See related questions where an array can be used / makes more sense than a slice:
Why use arrays instead of slices?
Why can't Go slice be used as keys in Go maps pretty much the same way arrays can be used as keys?
Hash with key as an array type
How do I check the equality of three values elegantly?
Slicing a slice pointer passed as argument
And this is just for curiosity: a slice can contain itself while an array can't. (Actually this property makes comparison easier as you don't have to deal with recursive data structures).
Must-read blogs:
Go Slices: usage and internals
Arrays, slices (and strings): The mechanics of 'append'

Answer 2

Arrays are values, and it is often useful to have a value instead of a pointer.
Values can be compared, hence you can use arrays as map keys.
Values are always initialized, so there's you don't need to initialize, or make them like you do with a slice.
Arrays give you better control of memory layout, where as you can't allocate space directly in a struct with a slice, you can with an array:
type Foo struct {
buf [64]byte
}
Here, a Foo value will contains a 64 byte value, rather than a slice header which needs to be separately initialized. Arrays are also used to pad structs to match alignment when interoperating with C code and to prevent false sharing for better cache performance.
Another aspect for improved performance is that you can better define memory layout than with slices, because data locality can have a very big impact on memory intensive calculations. Dereferencing a pointer can take considerable time compared to the operations being performed on the data, and copying values smaller than a cache line incurs very little cost, so performance critical code often uses arrays for that reason alone.

Answer 3

Arrays are more efficient in saving space. If you never update the size of the slice (i.e. start with a predefined size and never go past it) there really is not much of a performance difference. But there is extra overhead in space, as a slice is simply a wrapper containing the array at its core. Contextually, it also improves clarity as it makes the intended use of the variable more apparent.

Answer 4

Every array could be a slice but not every slice could be an array. If you have a fixed collection size you can get a minor performance improvement from using an array. At the very least you'll save the space occupied by the slice header.