> Wouldn't that basically be replicating a return value-error approach, in a more cumbersome way though? This would not be "replicating" anything, exceptions a

> Wouldn't that basically be replicating a return value-error approach, in a more cumbersome way though? This would not be "replicating" anything, exceptions already are values in most languages. The only thing to do is wrap your call with a function, like "err = catch-all(expr)". > ou could argue that Go can use Exceptions in the same manner as X lang too, by using panic and recover... Except that it would be cumbersome ;-) because panic/recover works only in combination with defer[0]. > With Go and Rust, return value error handling is just simply nice. Using non-exceptional control flow for errors can be useful depending on the circumstances. Using exceptions is simply nice in many other cases. > There's no question about if a function might error out, just look at the signature. Just look at the documentation. Code defensively. [0] http://stackoverflow.com/q/3413389/124319 http://stackoverflow.com/q/3413389/124319