The way errors are handled in go feels like the people were thinking hard "let's not repeat the horror of C++ exceptions" and are ok with ugly warts so long as

The way errors are handled in go feels like the people were thinking hard "let's not repeat the horror of C++ exceptions" and are ok with ugly warts so long as they're not uglier than exceptions... It's clear that there's way too much boilerplate in go procedures that deal with error handling by systematically bailing and passing the failure upstack... But the most confusing thing to me about try() is that, although it's shaped like a function, it actually returns from the current scope on error. It's dangerous syntactic sugar IMO to make this one function-call-like feature not behave like an actual function call...