4 ms·

Yes, that would be nice, but as lazy programmers we skip some error checks for a reason: sometimes the error is highly unlikely. As such, it might not be worth

Yes, that would be nice, but as lazy programmers we skip some error checks for a reason: sometimes the error is highly unlikely. As such, it might not be worth the cost of writing a bunch of error checking code which costs keystrokes and litters the code with ifs. If an uncaught exeception does happen, it moves from unlikely to likely, and so gets plugged up in the code. Rinse and repeat. Again, the obvious advantage being errors that are easy to track. In go this approach would result in a possibly nightmarish debugging session.

Matthias247 10y ago
Lazy programmers that skip error checks or count keystrokes as a something major are probably at the wrong job. Either an error can happen then it must be handled - no matter how likely it is. Or it can't happen, then there's no need to handle it. The rare exceptions are functions where errors are indicated in the type signature but in reality won't occur, e.g. because the error return value will only be used in other implementations of an interface or because a precondition that guarantees that there will be no error was checked before. And for this cases you could still do something like: _ = functionThatReturnsError() This is the approach that you e.g. have to follow in F#.