>The four most common words in Go programs are literally: "if", "err", "return", "nil". If that doesn't tell you the designers missed the boat on something, I d

>The four most common words in Go programs are literally: "if", "err", "return", "nil". If that doesn't tell you the designers missed the boat on something, I don't know what does. Are you trying to make a case for exceptions? If so, this isn't it. The "boat" the designers missed are Result types, or more generally "generics". I'm willing to bet most go function signatures are of f(...) (T, error). The if a,err := g(); err != nil boilerplate could be solved with Rust's `?` operator. For example: var exp int if a, err := compute(); err == nil { exp = a } else { return nil, err } could be rewritten as exp := compute()? Rust has `Result<T,E>` which makes this "simple". A `?` style operator in go would probably drastically reduce the mount of `err != nil` code in the wild. At the same time, the code is still being shoved up the stack.